Anti-Hu antibodies activate enteric and sensory neurons.

IgG of type 1 anti-neuronal nuclear antibody (ANNA-1, anti-Hu) specificity is a serological marker of paraneoplastic neurological autoimmunity (including enteric/autonomic) usually related to small-cell lung carcinoma. We show here that IgG isolated from such sera and also affinity-purified anti-HuD label enteric neurons and cause an immediate spike discharge in enteric and visceral sensory neurons. Both labelling and activation of enteric neurons was prevented by preincubation with the HuD antigen. Activation of enteric neurons was inhibited by the nicotinic receptor antagonists hexamethonium and dihydro-β-erythroidine and reduced by the P2X antagonist pyridoxal phosphate-6-azo (benzene-2,4-disulfonic acid (PPADS) but not by the 5-HT3 antagonist tropisetron or the N-type Ca-channel blocker ω-Conotoxin GVIA. Ca(++) imaging experiments confirmed activation of enteric neurons but not enteric glia. These findings demonstrate a direct excitatory action of ANNA-1, in particular anti-HuD, on visceral sensory and enteric neurons, which involves nicotinic and P2X receptors. The results provide evidence for a novel link between nerve activation and symptom generation in patients with antibody-mediated gut dysfunction

Global perspective on training and staffing for paediatric cardiac critical care

AbstractThis manuscript provides a global perspective on physician and nursing education and training in paediatric cardiac critical care, including available resources and delivery of care models with representatives from several regions of the world including Africa, Israel, Asia, Australasia, Europe, South America, and the United States of America

Evidence-Based Assessment of Genes in Dilated Cardiomyopathy

BACKGROUND: Each of the cardiomyopathies, classically categorized as hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM), and arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy, has a signature genetic theme. Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy and arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy are largely understood as genetic diseases of sarcomere or desmosome proteins, respectively. In contrast, >250 genes spanning >10 gene ontologies have been implicated in DCM, representing a complex and diverse genetic architecture. To clarify this, a systematic curation of evidence to establish the relationship of genes with DCM was conducted. METHODS: An international panel with clinical and scientific expertise in DCM genetics evaluated evidence supporting monogenic relationships of genes with idiopathic DCM. The panel used the Clinical Genome Resource semiquantitative gene-disease clinical validity classification framework with modifications for DCM genetics to classify genes into categories on the basis of the strength of currently available evidence. Representation of DCM genes on clinically available genetic testing panels was evaluated. RESULTS: Fifty-one genes with human genetic evidence were curated. Twelve genes (23%) from 8 gene ontologies were classified as having definitive ( BAG3, DES, FLNC, LMNA, MYH7, PLN, RBM20, SCN5A, TNNC1, TNNT2, TTN) or strong ( DSP) evidence. Seven genes (14%; ACTC1, ACTN2, JPH2, NEXN, TNNI3, TPM1, VCL) including 2 additional ontologies were classified as moderate evidence; these genes are likely to emerge as strong or definitive with additional evidence. Of these 19 genes, 6 were similarly classified for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy and 3 for arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy. Of the remaining 32 genes (63%), 25 (49%) had limited evidence, 4 (8%) were disputed, 2 (4%) had no disease relationship, and 1 (2%) was supported by animal model data only. Of the 16 evaluated clinical genetic testing panels, most definitive genes were included, but panels also included numerous genes with minimal human evidence. CONCLUSIONS: In the curation of 51 genes, 19 had high evidence (12 definitive/strong, 7 moderate). It is notable that these 19 genes explain only a minority of cases, leaving the remainder of DCM genetic architecture incompletely addressed. Clinical genetic testing panels include most high-evidence genes; however, genes lacking robust evidence are also commonly included. We recommend that high-evidence DCM genes be used for clinical practice and that caution be exercised in the interpretation of variants in variable-evidence DCM genes

An evidence-based assessment of genes in dilated cardiomyopathy

Background: The cardiomyopathies, classically categorized as hypertrophic (HCM), dilated (DCM), and arrhythmogenic right ventricular (ARVC), each have a signature genetic theme. HCM and ARVC are largely understood as genetic diseases of sarcomere or desmosome proteins, respectively. In contrast, >250 genes spanning more than 10 gene ontologies have been implicated in DCM, representing a complex and diverse genetic architecture. To clarify this, a systematic curation of evidence to establish the relationship of genes with DCM was conducted. Methods: An international Panel with clinical and scientific expertise in DCM genetics evaluated evidence supporting monogenic relationships of genes with idiopathic DCM. The Panel utilized the ClinGen semi-quantitative gene-disease clinical validity classification framework with modifications for DCM genetics to classify genes into categories based on the strength of currently available evidence. Representation of DCM genes on clinically available genetic testing panels was evaluated. Results: Fifty-one genes with human genetic evidence were curated. Twelve genes (23%) from eight gene ontologies were classified as having definitive (BAG3, DES, FLNC, LMNA, MYH7, PLN, RBM20, SCN5A, TNNC1, TNNT2, TTN) or strong (DSP) evidence. Seven genes (14%) (ACTC1, ACTN2, JPH2, NEXN, TNNI3, TPM1, VCL) including two additional ontologies were classified as moderate evidence; these genes are likely to emerge as strong or definitive with additional evidence. Of these 19 genes, six were similarly classified for HCM and three for ARVC. Of the remaining 32 genes (63%), 25 (49%) had limited evidence, 4 (8%) were disputed, 2 (4%) had no disease relationship, and 1 (2%) was supported by animal model data only. Of 16 evaluated clinical genetic testing panels, most definitive genes were included, but panels also included numerous genes with minimal human evidence. Conclusions: In the curation of 51 genes, 19 had high evidence (12 definitive/strong; seven moderate). Notably, these 19 genes only explain a minority of cases, leaving the remainder of DCM genetic architecture incompletely addressed. Clinical genetic testing panels include most high evidence genes, however genes lacking robust evidence are also commonly included. We recommend that high evidence DCM genes be used for clinical practice and to exercise caution when interpreting variants in variable evidence DCM genes