Selection of the solvent and extraction conditions for maximum recovery of antioxidant phenolic compounds from coffee silverskin

The extraction of antioxidant phenolic compounds from coffee silverskin (CS) was studied. Firstly, the effect of different solvents (methanol, ethanol, acetone, and distilled water) on the production of antioxidant extracts was evaluated. All the extracts showed antioxidant activity (FRAP and DPPH assays), but those obtained with methanol and ethanol had significantly higher (p < 0.05) DPPH inhibition than the remaining ones. Due to the lower toxicity, ethanol was selected as extraction solvent, and further experiments were performed in order to define the solvent concentration, solvent/solid ratio, and time to maximize the extraction results. The best condition to produce an extract with high content of phenolic compounds (13 mg gallic acid equivalents/g CS) and antioxidant activity [DPPH = 18.24 μmol Trolox equivalents/g CS and FRAP = 0.83 mmol Fe(II)/g CS] was achieved when using 60 % ethanol in a ratio of 35 ml/g CS, during 30 min at 60–65 °C.This work was supported by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT). The authors gratefully acknowledge Teresa Conde, student of Biological Engineering, for the help and interest in this work

PREDIVAC: CD4+T-cell epitope prediction for vaccine design that covers 95% of HLA class II DR protein diversity

Background: CD4+ T-cell epitopes play a crucial role in eliciting vigorous protective immune responses during peptide (epitope)-based vaccination. The prediction of these epitopes focuses on the peptide binding process by MHC class II proteins. The ability to account for MHC class II polymorphism is critical for epitope-based vaccine design tools, as different allelic variants can have different peptide repertoires. In addition, the specificity of CD4+ T-cells is often directed to a very limited set of immunodominant peptides in pathogen proteins. The ability to predict what epitopes are most likely to dominate an immune response remains a challenge

Simian Immunodeficiency Virus Infection of Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) Shares Features of Both Pathogenic and Non-pathogenic Lentiviral Infections.

The virus-host relationship in simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV) infected chimpanzees is thought to be different from that found in other SIV infected African primates. However, studies of captive SIVcpz infected chimpanzees are limited. Previously, the natural SIVcpz infection of one chimpanzee, and the experimental infection of six chimpanzees was reported, with limited follow-up. Here, we present a long-term study of these seven animals, with a retrospective re-examination of the early stages of infection. The only clinical signs consistent with AIDS or AIDS associated disease was thrombocytopenia in two cases, associated with the development of anti-platelet antibodies. However, compared to uninfected and HIV-1 infected animals, SIVcpz infected animals had significantly lower levels of peripheral blood CD4+ T-cells. Despite this, levels of T-cell activation in chronic infection were not significantly elevated. In addition, while plasma levels of β2 microglobulin, neopterin and soluble TNF-related apoptosis inducing ligand (sTRAIL) were elevated in acute infection, these markers returned to near-normal levels in chronic infection, reminiscent of immune activation patterns in 'natural host' species. Furthermore, plasma soluble CD14 was not elevated in chronic infection. However, examination of the secondary lymphoid environment revealed persistent changes to the lymphoid structure, including follicular hyperplasia in SIVcpz infected animals. In addition, both SIV and HIV-1 infected chimpanzees showed increased levels of deposition of collagen and increased levels of Mx1 expression in the T-cell zones of the lymph node. The outcome of SIVcpz infection of captive chimpanzees therefore shares features of both non-pathogenic and pathogenic lentivirus infections.This work was supported by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council and by the Wellcome Trust.This is the final version of the article. It first appeared from PLOS via http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.100514

ASNC/AHA/ASE/EANM/HFSA/ISA/SCMR/SNMMI Expert Consensus Recommendations for Multimodality Imaging in Cardiac Amyloidosis: Part 2 of 2—Diagnostic Criteria and Appropriate Utilization

Cardiac amyloidosis is emerging as an underdiagnosed cause of heart failure and mortality. Growing literature suggests that a noninvasive diagnosis of cardiac amyloidosis is now feasible. However, the diagnostic criteria and utilization of imaging in cardiac amyloidosis are not standardized. In this paper, Part 2 of a series, a panel of international experts from multiple societies define the diagnostic criteria for cardiac amyloidosis and appropriate utilization of echocardiography, cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging, and radionuclide imaging in the evaluation of patients with known or suspected cardiac amyloidosis

ASNC/AHA/ASE/EANM/HFSA/ISA/SCMR/SNMMI expert consensus recommendations for multimodality imaging in cardiac amyloidosis: Part 1 of 2—evidence base and standardized methods of imaging

Cardiac amyloidosis is a form of restrictive infiltrative cardiomyopathy that confers significant mortality. Due to the relative rarity of cardiac amyloidosis, clinical and diagnostic expertise in the recognition and evaluation of individuals with suspected amyloidosis is mostly limited to a few expert centers. Electrocardiography, echocardiography, and radionuclide imaging have been used for the evaluation of cardiac amyloidosis for over 40 years.1-3 Although cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) has also been in clinical practice for several decades, it was not applied to cardiac amyloidosis until the late 1990s. Despite an abundance of diagnostic imaging options, cardiac amyloidosis remains largely underrecognized or delayed in diagnosis.4 While advanced imaging options for noninvasive evaluation have substantially expanded, the evidence is predominately confined to single-center small studies or limited multicenter larger experiences, and there continues to be no clear consensus on standardized imaging pathways in cardiac amyloidosis. This lack of guidance is particularly problematic given that there are numerous emerging therapeutic options for this morbid disease, increasing the importance of accurate recognition at earlier stages. Imaging provides non-invasive tools for follow-up of disease remission/progression complementing clinical evaluation. Additional areas not defined include appropriate clinical indications for imaging, optimal imaging utilization by clinical presentation, accepted imaging methods, accurate image interpretation, and comprehensive and clear reporting. Prospective randomized clinical trial data for the diagnosis of amyloidosis and for imaging-based strategies for treatment are not available. A consensus of expert opinion is greatly needed to guide the appropriate clinical utilization of imaging in cardiac amyloidosis

ASNC/AHA/ASE/EANM/HFSA/ISA/SCMR/SNMMI expert consensus recommendations for multimodality imaging in cardiac amyloidosis: Part 2 of 2—Diagnostic criteria and appropriate utilization

Cardiac amyloidosis is emerging as an underdiagnosed cause of heart failure and mortality. Growing literature suggests that a noninvasive diagnosis of cardiac amyloidosis is now feasible. However, the diagnostic criteria and utilization of imaging in cardiac amyloidosis are not standardized. In this paper, Part 2 of a series, a panel of international experts from multiple societies define the diagnostic criteria for cardiac amyloidosis and appropriate utilization of echocardiography, cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging, and radionuclide imaging in the evaluation of patients with known or suspected cardiac amyloidosis

ASNC/AHA/ASE/EANM/HFSA/ISA/SCMR/SNMMI Expert Consensus Recommendations for Multimodality Imaging in Cardiac Amyloidosis: Part 1 of 2—Evidence Base and Standardized Methods of Imaging

Cardiac amyloidosis is a form of restrictive infiltrative cardiomyopathy that confers significant mortality. Because of the relative rarity of cardiac amyloidosis, clinical and diagnostic expertise in the recognition and evaluation of individuals with suspected amyloidosis is mostly limited to a few expert centers. Electrocardiography, echocardiography, and radionuclide imaging have been used for the evaluation of cardiac amyloidosis for over 40 years.1, 2, 3 Although cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) has also been in clinical practice for several decades, it was not applied to cardiac amyloidosis until the late 1990s. Despite an abundance of diagnostic imaging options, cardiac amyloidosis remains largely underrecognized or delayed in diagnosis.4 Although advanced imaging options for noninvasive evaluation have substantially expanded, the evidence is predominately confined to single-center small studies or limited multicenter larger experiences, and there continues to be no clear consensus on standardized imaging pathways in cardiac amyloidosis. This lack of guidance is particularly problematic given that there are numerous emerging therapeutic options for this morbid disease, increasing the importance of accurate recognition at earlier stages. Imaging provides noninvasive tools for follow-up of disease remission/progression complementing clinical evaluation. Additional areas not defined include appropriate clinical indications for imaging, optimal imaging utilization by clinical presentation, accepted imaging methods, accurate image interpretation, and comprehensive and clear reporting. Prospective randomized clinical trial data for the diagnosis of amyloidosis and for imaging-based strategies for treatment are not available. A consensus of expert opinion is greatly needed to guide the appropriate clinical utilization of imaging in cardiac amyloidosis