The efficacy of convalescent plasma for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is unclear. Although most randomized controlled trials have shown negative results, uncontrolled studies have suggested that the antibody content could influence patient outcomes. We conducted an open-label, randomized controlled trial of convalescent plasma for adults with COVID-19 receiving oxygen within 12 d of respiratory symptom onset (NCT04348656). Patients were allocated 2:1 to 500 ml of convalescent plasma or standard of care. The composite primary outcome was intubation or death by 30 d. Exploratory analyses of the effect of convalescent plasma antibodies on the primary outcome was assessed by logistic regression. The trial was terminated at 78% of planned enrollment after meeting stopping criteria for futility. In total, 940 patients were randomized, and 921 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Intubation or death occurred in 199/614 (32.4%) patients in the convalescent plasma arm and 86/307 (28.0%) patients in the standard of care arm—relative risk (RR) = 1.16 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94–1.43, P = 0.18). Patients in the convalescent plasma arm had more serious adverse events (33.4% versus 26.4%; RR = 1.27, 95% CI 1.02–1.57, P = 0.034). The antibody content significantly modulated the therapeutic effect of convalescent plasma. In multivariate analysis, each standardized log increase in neutralization or antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity independently reduced the potential harmful effect of plasma (odds ratio (OR) = 0.74, 95% CI 0.57–0.95 and OR = 0.66, 95% CI 0.50–0.87, respectively), whereas IgG against the full transmembrane spike protein increased it (OR = 1.53, 95% CI 1.14–2.05). Convalescent plasma did not reduce the risk of intubation or death at 30 d in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Transfusion of convalescent plasma with unfavorable antibody profiles could be associated with worse clinical outcomes compared to standard care.

GMX1777 is a prodrug of the small molecule GMX1778, currently in phase I clinical trials for the treatment of cancer. We describe findings indicating that GMX1778 is a potent and specific inhibitor of the NAD ؉ biosynthesis enzyme nicotinamide phosphoribosyltransferase (NAMPT). Cancer cells have a very high rate of NAD ؉ turnover, which makes NAD ؉ modulation an attractive target for anticancer therapy. Selective inhibition by GMX1778 of NAMPT blocks the production of NAD ؉ and results in tumor cell death. Furthermore, GMX1778 is phosphoribosylated by NAMPT, which increases its cellular retention. The cytotoxicity of GMX1778 can be bypassed with exogenous nicotinic acid (NA), which permits NAD ؉ repletion via NA phosphoribosyltransferase 1 (NAPRT1). The cytotoxicity of GMX1778 in cells with NAPRT1 deficiency, however, cannot be rescued by NA. Analyses of NAPRT1 mRNA and protein levels in cell lines and primary tumor tissue indicate that high frequencies of glioblastomas, neuroblastomas, and sarcomas are deficient in NAPRT1 and not susceptible to rescue with NA. As a result, the therapeutic index of GMX1777 can be widended in the treatment animals bearing NAPRT1-deficient tumors by coadministration with NA. This provides the rationale for a novel therapeutic approach for the use of GMX1777 in the treatment of human cancers.

Hes1 is a mammalian basic helix-loop-helix transcriptional repressor that inhibits neuronal differentiation together with corepressors of the Groucho (Gro)/Transducin-like Enhancer of split (TLE) family. The interaction of Hes1 with Gro/TLE is mediated by a WRPW tetrapeptide present in all Hairy/Enhancer of split (Hes) family members. In contrast to Hes1, the related protein Hes6 promotes neuronal differentiation. Little is known about the molecular mechanisms that underlie the neurogenic activity of Hes6. It is shown here that Hes6 antagonizes Hes1 function by two mechanisms. Hes6 inhibits the interaction of Hes1 with its transcriptional corepressor Gro/TLE. Moreover, it promotes proteolytic degradation of Hes1. This effect is maximal when both Hes1 and Hes6 contain the WRPW motif and is reduced when Hes6 is mutated to eliminate a conserved site (Ser183) that can be phosphorylated by protein kinase CK2. Consistent with these findings, Hes6 inhibits Hes1-mediated transcriptional repression in cortical neural progenitor cells and promotes the differentiation of cortical neurons, a process that is normally inhibited by Hes1. Mutation of Ser183 impairs the neurogenic ability of Hes6. Taken together, these findings clarify the molecular events underlying the neurogenic function of Hes6 and suggest that this factor can antagonize Hes1 activity by multiple mechanisms.In the developing mammalian central nervous system (CNS), differentiated neuronal and glial cells derive from multipotent neural progenitor cells located in the proliferative zone of the neural tube. The commitment of these progenitor cells to the neuronal lineage is regulated by the antagonistic activities of a number of positively and negatively acting transcription factors containing the basic helix-loop-helix (bHLH) DNA-binding and dimerization motif (reviewed in references 2 and 18). Neurogenic bHLH factors include several evolutionarily conserved molecules related to the proneural proteins Atonal and Achaete-Scute of Drosophila (8, 13, 21). They function by forming heterodimers with the ubiquitous bHLH protein E47. These dimers bind to DNA sequences commonly referred to as E boxes (CANNTG) and transactivate the expression of genes that promote the acquisition of the neuronal fate (17, 32).Antineurogenic bHLH factors include members of the Hairy/Enhancer of split (Hes) family (1,26,32). In contrast to proneural proteins, Hes factors like Hes1 and Hes5 mediate transcriptional repression and bind preferentially to DNA sequences referred to as N boxes (CACNAG) (32). They are thought to inhibit neuronal differentiation by antagonizing the neurogenic activity of the proneural proteins via multiple mechanisms, including direct involvement in the negative regulation of proneural gene expression (4,20) and inhibition of the activity of E47-proneural protein heterodimers (1,3,32). Genetic perturbations that alter the normal balance of the activities of proneural and antineurogenic bHLH proteins have dramatic effects on CNS development in vivo, underscoring th...

GMX1778 was recently shown to function as a potent inhibitor of nicotinamide phosphoribosyl transferase. To translate the discovery of GMX1778 mechanism of action into optimal clinical use of its intravenously administered prodrug, GMX1777, the efficacy of GMX1777 was evaluated in xenograft models and the pharmacokinetic profile of GMX1778 and its effect on nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide cellular levels was measured by liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry. Consistent with the requirement for a prolonged exposure for cytotoxicity in vitro, a dose of 75 mg/kg of GMX1777 administered as two bolus intravenous injections in 1 day were not effective at reducing the growth of multiple myeloma (IM-9) tumors, whereas the same dose of GMX1777 administered over a 24 h intravenous infusion caused tumor regression in the IM-9 model, a small-cell lung cancer (SHP-77) model, and a colon carcinoma (HCT-116) model. A 72 h continuous intravenous infusion of GMX1777 was also effective in the IM-9 model, but was associated with a smaller therapeutic index. GMX1777 at a dose of 75 mg/kg administered over a 24 h intravenous infusion produced GMX1778 steady-state plasma levels of approximately 1 microg/ml and caused nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide levels to decrease significantly in tumors. Consistent with the GMX1778 mechanism of action, nicotinic acid protected mice treated with a lethal dose of GMX1777. These data support the design of an open-label, dose-escalation trial, in which patients with refractory solid tumors and lymphomas receive 24 h infusions of GMX1777 as a single agent in 3-week cycles. Furthermore, these results indicate that nicotinic acid is a potent antidote to treat GMX1777 overdose.

HES6 is a novel member of the family of basic helix–loop–helix mammalian homologues of Drosophila Hairy and Enhancer of split. We have analyzed the biochemical and functional roles of HES6 in myoblasts. HES6 interacted with the corepressor transducin-like Enhancer of split 1 in yeast and mammalian cells through its WRPW COOH-terminal motif. HES6 repressed transcription from an N box–containing template and also when tethered to DNA through the GAL4 DNA binding domain. On N box–containing promoters, HES6 cooperated with HES1 to achieve maximal repression. An HES6–VP16 activation domain fusion protein activated the N box–containing reporter, confirming that HES6 bound the N box in muscle cells. The expression of HES6 was induced when myoblasts fused to become differentiated myotubes. Constitutive expression of HES6 in myoblasts inhibited expression of MyoR, a repressor of myogenesis, and induced differentiation, as evidenced by fusion into myotubes and expression of the muscle marker myosin heavy chain. Reciprocally, blocking endogenous HES6 function by using a WRPW-deleted dominant negative HES6 mutant led to increased expression of MyoR and completely blocked the muscle development program. Our results show that HES6 is an important regulator of myogenesis and suggest that MyoR is a target for HES6-dependent transcriptional repression.

No abstract

No abstract

Background In the current study, the authors determined whether adhering to molecular monitoring guidelines in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) is associated with major molecular response (MMR) and assessed barriers to adherent monitoring. Methods Newly treated patients with CML from the Quebec province‐wide CML registry from 2005 to 2016 were included. Timely polymerase chain reaction (tPCR) was defined as the molecular assessment of BCR‐ABL1 at the 3‐month, 12‐month, and 18‐month time points from the initiation of tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) therapy. The cohort was analyzed as a nested case‐control study. Cases with a first‐ever MMR (BCR‐ABL1 ≤0.1%, assessed at any time during follow‐up) were matched to up to 5 controls by duration of TKI therapy, volume of patients with CML at the treatment center, year of cohort entry, and age. Odds ratios (ORs) for the performance of tPCR and MMR were adjusted for sex, comorbidities, type of TKI, and other important covariates. Results The cohort included 496 patients. Of 392 MMR events, 67.9% occurred before 18 months. The performance of tPCR was associated with a doubling of the MMR rate (OR, 2.23; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.56‐3.21) and was similar with 1 to 3 tPCRs performed (P = .67). Furthermore, tPCRs at 3 months (OR, 2.77; 95% CI, 1.81‐4.23) and 12 months (OR, 3.00; 95% CI, 1.64‐5.49) were associated with achieving early MMR, whereas tPCRs at 18 months were not (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.80‐1.89). Low‐volume centers were found to have lower adherence to tPCR (OR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.40‐0.89). Conclusions Timely molecular assessment at 3 months and 12 months appears to benefit patients with CML. Adherence to timely monitoring should be encouraged, especially in low‐volume treatment centers.