Different modes of translation for hid, grim and sickle mRNAs in Drosophila

Protein synthesis is inhibited during apoptosis. However, the translation of many mRNAs still proceeds driven by internal ribosome entry sites (IRESs). Here we show that the 5'UTR of hid and grim mRNAs promote translation of uncapped-mRNA reporters in cell-free embryonic extracts and that hid and grim mRNA 5'UTRs drive IRES-mediated translation. The translation of capped-reporters proceeds in the presence of cap competitor and in extracts where cap-dependent translation is impaired. We show that the endogenous hid and grim mRNAs are present in polysomes of heat-shocked embryos, indicating that cap recognition is not required for translation. In contrast, sickle mRNA is translated in a cap-dependent manner in all these assays. Our results show that IRES-dependent initiation may play a role in the translation of Drosophila proapoptotic genes and suggest a variety of regulatory pathways.

Quality in emergency departments: a study on 3,285,440 admissions

INTRODUCTION: A multi-centre study has been conducted, during 2005, by means of a questionnaire posted on the Italian Society of Emergency Medicine (SIMEU) web page. Our intention was to carry out an organisational and functional analysis of Italian Emergency Departments (ED) in order to pick out some macro-indicators of the activities performed. Participation was good, in that 69 ED (3,285,440 admissions to emergency services) responded to the questionnaire. METHODS: The study was based on 18 questions: 3 regarding the personnel of the ED, 2 regarding organisational and functional aspects, 5 on the activity of the ED, 7 on triage and 1 on the assessment of the quality perceived by the users of the ED. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: The replies revealed that 91.30% of the ED were equipped with data-processing software, which, in 96.83% of cases, tracked the entire itinerary of the patient. About 48,000 patients/year used the ED: 76.72% were discharged and 18.31% were hospitalised. Observation Units were active in 81.16% of the ED examined. Triage programmes were in place in 92.75% of ED: in 75.81% of these, triage was performed throughout the entire itinerary of the patient; in 16.13% it was performed only symptom-based, and in 8.06% only on-call. Of the patients arriving at the ED, 24.19% were assigned a non-urgent triage code, 60.01% a urgent code, 14.30% a emergent code and 1.49% a life-threatening code. Waiting times were: 52.39 min for non-urgent patients, 40.26 min for urgent, 12.08 for emergent, and 1.19 for life-threatening patients.

Response surface modeling of the interaction between propofol and sevoflurane

BACKGROUND: Propofol and sevoflurane display additivity for gamma-aminobutyric acid receptor activation, loss of consciousness, and tolerance of skin incision. Information about their interaction regarding electroencephalographic suppression is unavailable. This study examined this interaction as well as the interaction on the probability of tolerance of shake and shout and three noxious stimulations by using a response surface methodology. METHODS: Sixty patients preoperatively received different combined concentrations of propofol (0-12 microg/ml) and sevoflurane (0-3.5 vol.%) according to a crisscross design (274 concentration pairs, 3 to 6 per patient). After having reached pseudo-steady state, the authors recorded bispectral index, state and response entropy and the response to shake and shout, tetanic stimulation, laryngeal mask airway insertion, and laryngoscopy. For the analysis of the probability of tolerance by logistic regression, a Greco interaction model was used. For the separate analysis of bispectral index, state and response entropy suppression, a fractional Emax Greco model was used. All calculations were performed with NONMEM V (GloboMax LLC, Hanover, MD). RESULTS: Additivity was found for all endpoints, the Ce(50, PROP)/Ce(50, SEVO) for bispectral index suppression was 3.68 microg. ml(-1)/ 1.53 vol.%, for tolerance of shake and shout 2.34 microg . ml(-1)/ 1.03 vol.%, tetanic stimulation 5.34 microg . ml(-1)/ 2.11 vol.%, laryngeal mask airway insertion 5.92 microg. ml(-1) / 2.55 vol.%, and laryngoscopy 6.55 microg. ml(-1)/2.83 vol.%. CONCLUSION: For both electroencephalographic suppression and tolerance to stimulation, the interaction of propofol and sevoflurane was identified as additive. The response surface data can be used for more rational dose finding in case of sequential and coadministration of propofol and sevoflurane.

Liraglutide once a day versus exenatide twice a day for type 2 diabetes: a 26-week randomised, parallel-group, multinational, open-label trial (LEAD-6)

BACKGROUND: Unlike most antihyperglycaemic drugs, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists have a glucose-dependent action and promote weight loss. We compared the efficacy and safety of liraglutide, a human GLP-1 analogue, with exenatide, an exendin-based GLP-1 receptor agonist. METHODS: Adults with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes on maximally tolerated doses of metformin, sulphonylurea, or both, were stratified by previous oral antidiabetic therapy and randomly assigned to receive additional liraglutide 1.8 mg once a day (n=233) or exenatide 10 microg twice a day (n=231) in a 26-week open-label, parallel-group, multinational (15 countries) study. The primary outcome was change in glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)). Efficacy analyses were by intention to treat. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00518882. FINDINGS: Mean baseline HbA(1c) for the study population was 8.2%. Liraglutide reduced mean HbA(1c) significantly more than did exenatide (-1.12% [SE 0.08] vs -0.79% [0.08]; estimated treatment difference -0.33; 95% CI -0.47 to -0.18; p<0.0001) and more patients achieved a HbA(1c) value of less than 7% (54%vs 43%, respectively; odds ratio 2.02; 95% CI 1.31 to 3.11; p=0.0015). Liraglutide reduced mean fasting plasma glucose more than did exenatide (-1.61 mmol/L [SE 0.20] vs -0.60 mmol/L [0.20]; estimated treatment difference -1.01 mmol/L; 95% CI -1.37 to -0.65; p<0.0001) but postprandial glucose control was less effective after breakfast and dinner. Both drugs promoted similar weight losses (liraglutide -3.24 kg vs exenatide -2.87 kg). Both drugs were well tolerated, but nausea was less persistent (estimated treatment rate ratio 0.448, p<0.0001) and minor hypoglycaemia less frequent with liraglutide than with exenatide (1.93 vs 2.60 events per patient per year; rate ratio 0.55; 95% CI 0.34 to 0.88; p=0.0131; 25.5%vs 33.6% had minor hypoglycaemia). Two patients taking both exenatide and a sulphonylurea had a major hypoglycaemic episode. INTERPRETATION: Liraglutide once a day provided significantly greater improvements in glycaemic control than did exenatide twice a day, and was generally better tolerated. The results suggest that liraglutide might be a treatment option for type 2 diabetes, especially when weight loss and risk of hypoglycaemia are major considerations.