The effects of prostaglandin E-2 treatment on the secretory function of mare corpus luteum depends on the site of application : an in vivo study

Research Areas: Veterinary SciencesWe examined the effect of prostaglandin (PG) E2 on the secretory function of equine corpus luteum (CL), according to the application site: intra-CL injection vs. an intrauterine (intra-U) administration. Moreover, the effect of intra-CL injection vs. intra-U administration of both luteotropic factors: PGE2 and human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) as a positive control, on CL function was additionally compared. Mares were assigned to the groups (n = 6 per group): (1) an intra-CL saline injection (control); (2) an intra-CL injection of PGE2 (5 mg/ml); (3) an intra-CL injection of hCG (1,500 IU/ml); (4) an intra-U saline administration (control); (5) an intra-U administration of PGE2 (5 mg/5 ml); (6) an intra-U administration of hCG (1,500 IU/5 ml). Progesterone (P4) and PGE2 concentrations were measured in blood plasma samples collected at −2, −1, and 0 (pre-treatment), and at 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, and 24 h after treatments. Moreover, effects of different doses of PGE2 application on the concentration of total PGF2α (PGF2α and its main metabolite 13,14-dihydro-15-keto-prostaglandin F2α– PGFM) was determined. The time point of PGE2, hCG, or saline administration was defined as hour “0” of the experiment. An intra-CL injection of PGE2 increased P4 and PGE2 concentrations between 3 and 4 h or at 3 and 12 h, respectively (p < 0.05). While intra-U administration of PGE2 elevated P4 concentrations between 8 and 24 h, PGE2 was upregulated at 1 h and between 3 and 4 h (p < 0.05). An intra-CL injection of hCG increased P4 concentrations at 1, 6, and 12 h (p < 0.05), while its intra-U administration enhanced P4 and PGE2 concentrations between 1 and 12 h or at 3 h and between 6 and 10 h, respectively (p < 0.05). An application of PGE2, dependently on the dose, supports equine CL function, regardless of the application site, consequently leading to differences in both P4 and PGE2 concentrations in blood plasmainfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Quantifying the impact of novel metastatic cancer therapies on health inequalities in survival outcomes

Background: Novel therapies in metastatic cancers have contributed to improvements in survival outcomes, yet real-world data suggest that improvements may be mainly driven by those patient groups who already had the highest survival outcomes. This study aimed to develop and apply a framework for quantifying the impact of novel metastatic cancer therapies on health inequalities in survival outcomes based on published aggregate data.Methods: Nine (N = 9) novel therapies for metastatic breast cancer (mBC), metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), and metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) were identified, 3 for each cancer type. Individual patient data (IPD) for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were replicated from published Kaplan-Meier (KM) curves. For each cancer type, data were pooled for the novel therapies and comparators separately and weighted based on sample size to ensure equal contribution of each therapy in the analyses. Parametric (mixture) distributions were fitted to the weighted data to model and extrapolate survival. The inequality in survival was defined by the absolute difference between groups with the highest and lowest survival for 2 stratifications: one for which survival was stratified into 2 groups and one using 5 groups. Additionally, a linear regression model was fitted to survival estimates for the 5 groups, with the regression coefficient or slope considered as the inequality gradient (IG). The impact of the pooled novel therapies was subsequently defined as the change in survival inequality relative to the pooled comparator therapies. A probabilistic analysis was performed to quantify parameter uncertainty.Results: The analyses found that novel therapies were associated with significant increases in inequalities in survival outcomes relative to their comparators, except in terms of OS for mNSCLC. For mBC, the inequalities in OS increased by 13.9 (95% CI: 1.4; 26.6) months, or 25.0%, if OS was stratified in 5 groups. The IG for mBC increased by 3.2 (0.3; 6.1) months, or 24.7%. For mCRC, inequalities increased by 6.7 (3.0; 10.5) months, or 40.4%, for stratification based on 5 groups; the IG increased by 1.6 (0.7; 2.4) months, or 40.2%. For mNSCLC, inequalities decreased by 14.9 (−84.5; 19.0) months, or 12.2%, for the 5-group stratification; the IG decreased by 2.0 (−16.1; 5.1) months, or 5.5%. Results for the stratification based on 2 groups demonstrated significant increases in OS inequality for all cancer types. In terms of PFS, the increases in survival inequalities were larger in a relative sense compared with OS. For mBC, PFS inequalities increased by 8.7 (5.9; 11.6) months, or 71.7%, for stratification based on 5 groups; the IG increased by 2.0 (1.3; 2.6) months, or 67.6%. For mCRC, PFS inequalities increased by 5.4 (4.2; 6.6) months, or 147.6%, for the same stratification. The IG increased by 1.3 (1.1; 1.6) months, or 172.7%. For mNSCLC, inequalities increased by 18.2 (12.5; 24.4) months, or 93.8%, for the 5-group stratification; the IG increased by 4.0 (2.8; 5.4) months, or 88.1%. Results from the stratification based on 2 groups were similar.Conclusion: Novel therapies for mBC, mCRC, and mNSCLC are generally associated with significant increases in survival inequalities relative to their comparators in randomized controlled trials, though inequalities in OS for mNSCLC decreased nonsignificantly when stratified based on 5 groups. Although further research using real-world IPD is warranted to assess how, for example, social determinants of health affect the impact of therapies on health inequalities among patient groups, the proposed framework can provide important insights in the absence of such data

Rapid depletion and super-resolution microscopy reveal dual roles of SRSF5 in coordinating nuclear speckle-paraspeckle crosstalk during cellular stress

Nuclear speckles (NS) and paraspeckles (PS) are adjacent yet distinct nuclear condensates that undergo stress-induced reorganization. Here, we identify a dual role for the splicing factor SRSF5 in coordinating the crosstalk between both condensates. Super-resolution imaging shows that SRSF5, while enriched in NS, also overlaps with the shell of a subset of PS. SRSF5 binds purine-rich sequences at the 5' end of NEAT1\_2 promoting its alignment to PS shells and the formation of large PS cluster during stress. We propose that SRSF5 binding occurs transiently during PS maturation and must later be removed from NEAT1\_2 by nuclear helicases. Inhibition of this remodeling by rocaglamide A, which locks helicases onto purine-rich RNA leads to the aberrant fusion of PS and NS, which can be partially rescued by acute SRSF5 depletion. Surprisingly, while short-term SRSF5 loss impairs PS formation, prolonged depletion activates a feedback loop involving intron retention and premature polyadenylation of TARDBP, reduction of TDP-43 levels and NEAT1\_2 isoform switching, ultimately restoring PS clusters. Our findings reveal that SRSF5 serves both architectural and regulatory roles in PS biogenesis and that helicase-mediated remodeling is essential to maintain PS identity and function under stress. These insights uncover fundamental principles of nuclear body dynamics