The IC3D classification of the corneal dystrophies.

BACKGROUND: The recent availability of genetic analyses has demonstrated the shortcomings of the current phenotypic method of corneal dystrophy classification. Abnormalities in different genes can cause a single phenotype, whereas different defects in a single gene can cause different phenotypes. Some disorders termed corneal dystrophies do not appear to have a genetic basis. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to develop a new classification system for corneal dystrophies, integrating up-to-date information on phenotypic description, pathologic examination, and genetic analysis. METHODS: The International Committee for Classification of Corneal Dystrophies (IC3D) was created to devise a current and accurate nomenclature. RESULTS: This anatomic classification continues to organize dystrophies according to the level chiefly affected. Each dystrophy has a template summarizing genetic, clinical, and pathologic information. A category number from 1 through 4 is assigned, reflecting the level of evidence supporting the existence of a given dystrophy. The most defined dystrophies belong to category 1 (a well-defined corneal dystrophy in which a gene has been mapped and identified and specific mutations are known) and the least defined belong to category 4 (a suspected dystrophy where the clinical and genetic evidence is not yet convincing). The nomenclature may be updated over time as new information regarding the dystrophies becomes available. CONCLUSIONS: The IC3D Classification of Corneal Dystrophies is a new classification system that incorporates many aspects of the traditional definitions of corneal dystrophies with new genetic, clinical, and pathologic information. Standardized templates provide key information that includes a level of evidence for there being a corneal dystrophy. The system is user-friendly and upgradeable and can be retrieved on the website www.corneasociety.org/ic3d.

Urokinase receptor (uPAR, CD87) is a platelet receptor important for kinetics and TNF-induced endothelial adhesion in mice.

BACKGROUND: Urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (uPAR, CD87) is a widely distributed 55-kD, glycoprotein I-anchored surface receptor. On binding of its ligand uPA, it is known to increase leukocyte adhesion and traffic. Using genetically deficient mice, we explored the role of uPAR in platelet kinetics and TNF-induced platelet consumption. METHODS AND RESULTS: Anti-uPAR antibody stained platelets from normal (+/+) but not from uPAR-/- mice, as seen by fluorescence-activated cell sorter analysis. 51Cr-labeled platelets from uPAR-/- donors survived longer than those from +/+ donors when injected into a +/+ recipient. Intratracheal TNF injection induced thrombocytopenia and a platelet pulmonary localization, pronounced in +/+ but absent in uPAR-/- mice. Aprotinin, a plasmin inhibitor, decreased TNF-induced thrombocytopenia. TNF injection markedly reduced the survival and increased the pulmonary localization of 51Cr-labeled platelets from +/+ but not from uPAR-/- donors, indicating that it is the platelet uPAR that is critical for their response to TNF. As seen by electron microscopy, TNF injection increased the number of platelets and polymorphonuclear neutrophils (PMNs) in the alveolar capillaries of +/+ mice, whereas in uPAR-/- mice, platelet trapping was insignificant and PMN trapping was slightly reduced. Platelets within alveolar capillaries of TNF-injected mice were activated, as judged from their shape, and this was evident in +/+ but not in uPAR-/- mice. CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate for the first time the critical role of platelet uPAR for kinetics as well as for activation and endothelium adhesion associated with inflammation.

A temporal hierarchy for conspecific vocalization discrimination in humans.

Introduction: Discrimination of species-specific vocalizations is fundamental for survival and social interactions. Its unique behavioral relevance has encouraged the identification of circumscribed brain regions exhibiting selective responses (Belin et al., 2004), while the role of network dynamics has received less attention. Those studies that have examined the brain dynamics of vocalization discrimination leave unresolved the timing and the inter-relationship between general categorization, attention, and speech-related processes (Levy et al., 2001, 2003; Charest et al., 2009). Given these discrepancies and the presence of several confounding factors, electrical neuroimaging analyses were applied to auditory evoked-potential (AEPs) to acoustically and psychophysically controlled non-verbal human and animal vocalizations. This revealed which region(s) exhibit voice-sensitive responses and in which sequence. Methods: Subjects (N=10) performed a living vs. man-made 'oddball' auditory discrimination task, such that on a given block of trials 'target' stimuli occurred 10% of the time. Stimuli were complex, meaningful sounds of 500ms duration. There were 120 different sound files in total, 60 of which represented sounds of living objects and 60 man-made objects. The stimuli that were the focus of the present investigation were restricted to those of living objects within blocks where no response was required. These stimuli were further sorted between human non-verbal vocalizations and animal vocalizations. They were also controlled in terms of their spectrograms and formant distributions. Continuous 64-channel EEG was acquired through Neuroscan Synamps referenced to the nose, band-pass filtered 0.05-200Hz, and digitized at 1000Hz. Peri-stimulus epochs of continuous EEG (-100ms to 900ms) were visually inspected for artifacts, 40Hz low-passed filtered and baseline corrected using the pre-stimulus period . Averages were computed from each subject separately. AEPs in response to animal and human vocalizations were analyzed with respect to differences of Global Field Power (GFP) and with respect to changes of the voltage configurations at the scalp (reviewed in Murray et al., 2008). The former provides a measure of the strength of the electric field irrespective of topographic differences; the latter identifies changes in spatial configurations of the underlying sources independently of the response strength. In addition, we utilized the local auto-regressive average distributed linear inverse solution (LAURA; Grave de Peralta Menendez et al., 2001) to visualize and statistically contrast the likely underlying sources of effects identified in the preceding analysis steps. Results: We found differential activity in response to human vocalizations over three periods in the post-stimulus interval, and this response was always stronger than that to animal vocalizations. The first differential response (169-219ms) was a consequence of a modulation in strength of a common brain network localized into the right superior temporal sulcus (STS; Brodmann's Area (BA) 22) and extending into the superior temporal gyrus (STG; BA 41). A second difference (291-357ms) also followed from strength modulations of a common network with statistical differences localized to the left inferior precentral and prefrontal gyrus (BA 6/45). These two first strength modulations correlated (Spearman's rho(8)=0.770; p=0.009) indicative of functional coupling between temporally segregated stages of vocalization discrimination. A third difference (389-667ms) followed from strength and topographic modulations and was localized to the left superior frontal gyrus (BA10) although this third difference did not reach our spatial criterion of 12 continuous voxels. Conclusions: We show that voice discrimination unfolds over multiple temporal stages, involving a wide network of brain regions. The initial stages of vocalization discrimination are based on modulations in response strength within a common brain network with no evidence for a voice-selective module. The latency of this effect parallels that of face discrimination (Bentin et al., 2007), supporting the possibility that voice and face processes can mutually inform one another. Putative underlying sources (localized in the right STS; BA 22) are consistent with prior hemodynamic imaging evidence in humans (Belin et al., 2004). Our effect over the 291-357ms post-stimulus period overlaps the 'voice-specific-response' reported by Levy et al. (Levy et al., 2001) and the estimated underlying sources (left BA6/45) were in agreement with previous findings in humans (Fecteau et al., 2005). These results challenge the idea that circumscribed and selective areas subserve con-specific vocalization processing.