A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Intradermal vs. Intramuscular Influenza Vaccine in Lung Transplant Recipients

Background: Immunogenicity of standard infl uenza vaccine is suboptimal in lung transplant recipients. Intradermal vaccine may elicit stronger responses due to recruitment of local dendritic cells. We compared the immunogenicity of the infl uenza vaccine administered intradermally (ID) to the standard intramuscular (IM) vaccination. Methods: In this investigator-blinded, two-center, prospective trial, lung transplant patients were randomized to receive intradermal (6ug) or intramuscular (15ug) 2008/9 trivalent inactivated infl uenza vaccine. Immunogenicity was evaluated using a standard hemagglutination inhibition assay (HIA). Response to the vaccine was defi ned as a fourfold increase of the HIA levels for any of the 3 viral strains in the vaccine. Geometric mean titers (GMT) and seroprotection rate (HIA ≥32) were also analyzed. Patients were followed during 6 months for the development of infl uenza or acute rejection. Results: We randomized 84 patients to receive the ID (n=41) vs. IM (n=43) vaccine, respectively. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. Median time from transplantation was 3.4 yrs (ID) vs. 3.3 yrs (IM) (p=0.84). Vaccine response to at least one antigen was seen in 6/41 (14.6%) patients in the ID vs. 8/43 (18.6%) in the IM group (p=0.77). In the ID group, GMTs (95% CI) after vaccination were 15.7 (11.1-22.3) for H1N1, 84.0 (52.0-135.7) for H3N2, and 14.5 (9.6-21.8) for B strains vs. in the IM group 17.5 (11.8-25.9) for H1N1, 108.9 (77.5-153.2) for H3N2, and 20.2 (12.8-31.9) for B (p=NS, all 3 strains). Seroprotection was 39% (H1N1), 82.9% (H3N2) and 29.3% (B strain) in the ID group vs. 27.9% (H1N1), 97.7% (H3N2) and 58.1% (B strain) in the IM group. No factors associated with vaccine response were identifi ed. Mild adverse events were seen in 44% of patients (ID) vs. 34% (IM) (p=0.38). Two patients (4.8%) in the ID group developed infl uenza infection compared to none in the IM group. Two patients in each group developed biopsy-proven acute rejection during follow-up. Conclusions: Immunogenicity of the 2008/09 infl uenza vaccine was poor in lung transplant recipients. ID administration of the vaccine elicited similar immune responses to standard IM vaccination. Novel strategies of vaccination are needed to protect lung transplant recipients from infl uenza.

Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) A 3243G mutation associated with an annular perimacular retinal atrophy

BACKGROUND: A point mutation at the locus 3243 of the mitonchondrial DNA (mtDNA) is associated with either the MIDD syndrome (maternally inherited diabetes, deafness), the MELAS syndrome (myopathy, encephalitis, lactic acidosis, stroke) or cardiac, digestive, endocrine or exocrine dysfunctions. We report a peculiar maculopathy in two patients with an mtDNA 3243 mutation. HISTORY AND SIGNS: Case 1: A visually asymptomatic 40-year-old woman was examined for screening of diabetic retinopathy. Visual acuity was 10 / 10 in both eyes. Case 2: A 54-year-old woman with deafness and diabetes complained of visual loss. Visual acuity was 6 / 10 for the right eye and 0.5 / 10 for the left eye. Both patients exhibited a chorioretinal areolar atrophy. Case 1 was followed over 15 years and exhibited a slow progression of the maculopathy with moderate loss of visual acuity to 6 / 10 in both eyes, but marked handicap from the annular scotoma. THERAPY AND OUTCOME: None. CONCLUSION: Both patients presented a perimacular annular retinal atrophy. Patients harbouring mtDNA 3243 mutation should be examined for the presence of a maculopathy, even if they are asymptomatic. Conversely, the finding of such a geographic maculopathy should suggest the possibility of a point mutation at the locus 3243 of the mitochondrial DNA, especially in the presences of diabetes mellitus and/or deafness

Transduction of CpG DNA-stimulated primary human B cells with bicistronic lentivectors.

Recently, using HIV-1-derived lentivectors, we obtained efficient transduction of primary human B lymphocytes cocultured with murine EL-4 B5 thymoma cells, but not of isolated B cells activated by CD40 ligation. Coculture with a cell line is problematic for gene therapy applications or study of gene functions. We have now found that transduction of B cells in a system using CpG DNA was comparable to that in the EL-4 B5 system. A monocistronic vector with a CMV promoter gave 32 +/- 4.7% green fluorescent protein (GFP)+ cells. A bicistronic vector, encoding IL-4 and GFP in the first and second cistrons, respectively, gave 14.2 +/- 2.1% GFP+ cells and IL-4 secretion of 1.3 +/- 0.2 ng/10(5) B cells/24 h. This was similar to results obtained in CD34+ cells using the elongation factor-1alpha promoter. Activated memory and naive B cells were transducible. After transduction with a bicistronic vector encoding a viral FLIP molecule, vFLIP was detectable by FACS or Western blot in GFP+, but not in GFP-, B cells, and 57% of sorted GFP+ B cells were protected against Fas ligand-induced cell death. This system should be useful for gene function research in primary B cells and development of gene therapies.

DNA fingerprinting of glioma cell lines and considerations on similarity measurements.

Glioma cell lines are an important tool for research in basic and translational neuro-oncology. Documentation of their genetic identity has become a requirement for scientific journals and grant applications to exclude cross-contamination and misidentification that lead to misinterpretation of results. Here, we report the standard 16 marker short tandem repeat (STR) DNA fingerprints for a panel of 39 widely used glioma cell lines as reference. Comparison of the fingerprints among themselves and with the large DSMZ database comprising 9 marker STRs for 2278 cell lines uncovered 3 misidentified cell lines and confirmed previously known cross-contaminations. Furthermore, 2 glioma cell lines exhibited identity scores of 0.8, which is proposed as the cutoff for detecting cross-contamination. Additional characteristics, comprising lack of a B-raf mutation in one line and a similarity score of 1 with the original tumor tissue in the other, excluded a cross-contamination. Subsequent simulation procedures suggested that, when using DNA fingerprints comprising only 9 STR markers, the commonly used similarity score of 0.8 is not sufficiently stringent to unambiguously differentiate the origin. DNA fingerprints are confounded by frequent genetic alterations in cancer cell lines, particularly loss of heterozygosity, that reduce the informativeness of STR markers and, thereby, the overall power for distinction. The similarity score depends on the number of markers measured; thus, more markers or additional cell line characteristics, such as information on specific mutations, may be necessary to clarify the origin.

Whose DNA is this? How relevant a question? (a note for forensic scientists).

This communication seeks to draw the attention of researchers and practitioners dealing with forensic DNA profiling analyses to the following question: is a scientist's report, offering support to a hypothesis according to which a particular individual is the source of DNA detected during the analysis of a stain, relevant from the point of view of a Court of Justice? This question relates to skeptical views previously voiced by commentators mainly in the judicial area, but is avoided by a large majority of forensic scientists. Notwithstanding, the pivotal role of this question has recently been evoked during the international conference "The hidden side of DNA profiles. Artifacts, errors and uncertain evidence" held in Rome (April 27th to 28th, 2012). Indeed, despite the fact that this conference brought together some of the world's leading forensic DNA specialists, it appeared clearly that a huge gap still exists between questions lawyers are actually interested in, and the answers that scientists deliver to Courts in written reports or during oral testimony. Participants in the justice system, namely lawyers and jurors on the one hand and forensic geneticists on the other, unfortunately talk considerably different languages. It thus is fundamental to address this issue of communication about results of forensic DNA analyses, and open a dialogue with practicing non-scientists at large who need to make meaningful use of scientific results to approach and help solve judicial cases. This paper intends to emphasize the actuality of this topic and suggest beneficial ways ahead towards a more reasoned use of forensic DNA in criminal proceedings.

Detection of bovine foetal DNA from amniotic fluid using the polymerase chain reaction

Selostus: Sikiön DNA:n tunnistaminen naudan sikiövedestä polymeraasiketjureaktion avulla