Background Plasmacytoid dendritic cells have been implicated in the pathogenesis of systemic sclerosis through mechanisms beyond the previously suggested production of type I interferon. Methods We isolated plasmacytoid dendritic cells from healthy persons and from patients with systemic sclerosis who had distinct clinical phenotypes. We then performed proteome-wide analysis and validated these observations in five large cohorts of patients with systemic sclerosis. Next, we compared the results with those in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus, ankylosing spondylitis, and hepatic fibrosis. We correlated plasma levels of CXCL4 protein with features of systemic sclerosis and studied the direct effects of CXCL4 in vitro and in vivo. Results Proteome-wide analysis and validation showed that CXCL4 is the predominant protein secreted by plasmacytoid dendritic cells in systemic sclerosis, both in circulation and in skin. The mean (±SD) level of CXCL4 in patients with systemic sclerosis was 25,624±2652 pg per milliliter, which was significantly higher than the level in controls (92.5±77.9 pg per milliliter) and than the level in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (1346±1011 pg per milliliter), ankylosing spondylitis (1368±1162 pg per milliliter), or liver fibrosis (1668±1263 pg per milliliter). CXCL4 levels correlated with skin and lung fibrosis and with pulmonary arterial hypertension. Among chemokines, only CXCL4 predicted the risk and progression of systemic sclerosis. In vitro, CXCL4 downregulated expression of transcription factor FLI1, induced markers of endothelial-cell activation, and potentiated responses of toll-like receptors. In vivo, CXCL4 induced the influx of inflammatory cells and skin transcriptome changes, as in systemic sclerosis. Conclusions Levels of CXCL4 were elevated in patients with systemic sclerosis and correlated with the presence and progression of complications, such as lung fibrosis and pulmonary arterial hypertension. (Funded by the Dutch Arthritis Association and others.)

This systematic review was designed to provide more precise effect estimates of inhibitor development for the various types of F8 gene mutations in patients with severe hemophilia A. The primary outcome was inhibitor development and the secondary outcome was high-titerinhibitor development. A systematic literature search was performed to include cohort studies published in peer-reviewed journals with data on inhibitor incidences in the various F8 gene mutation types and a mutation detection rate of at least 80%.

Key Points• The inhibitor incidence in nonsevere hemophilia A patients with certain F8 mutations approaches the inhibitor incidence in severe patients.• These findings are highly relevant for clinical practice, as they facilitate identification of high-risk patients based on F8 genotype.Neutralizing antibodies (inhibitors) toward factor VIII form a severe complication in nonsevere hemophilia A, profoundly aggravating the bleeding pattern. Identification of high-risk patients is hampered by lack of data that take exposure days to therapeutic factor VIII concentrates into account. In the INSIGHT study, we analyzed the association between F8 mutation and inhibitor development in patients with nonsevere hemophilia A (factor VIII 2-40 IU/dL). This analysis included 1112 nonsevere hemophilia A patients from 14 centers in Europe and Australia that had genotyped at least 70% of their patients. Inhibitor risk was calculated as KaplanMeier incidence with cumulative number of exposure days as the time variable. During 44 800 exposure days (median, 24 exposure days per patient; interquartile range [IQR], 7-90), 59 of the 1112 patients developed an inhibitor; cumulative incidence of 5.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.0-6.6) after a median of 28 exposure days (IQR,. The inhibitor risk at 50 exposure days was 6.7% (95% CI, 4.5-8.9) and at 100 exposure days the risk further increased to 13.3% (95% CI, 9.6-17.0). Among a total of 214 different F8 missense mutations 19 were associated with inhibitor development. These results emphasize the importance of F8 genotyping in nonsevere hemophilia A. (Blood. 2013; 122(11):1954-1962 IntroductionPatients with hemophilia A who are treated with factor VIII concentrates are at risk of developing factor VIII neutralizing alloantibodies (inhibitors).1,2 Inhibitor development is one of the most challenging complications in the treatment of hemophilia A, as it increases the bleeding tendency while it renders treatment with therapeutic factor VIII concentrates ineffective. Although inhibitor development is less frequently observed in patients with nonsevere hemophilia A (baseline factor VIII activity of 2-40 IU/dL), the clinical impact can be profound. In these patients, inhibitors may also interact with their endogenous factor VIII, resulting in a decrease of the factor VIII plasma level below 1 IU/dL 1 and major bleeding complications. 4 Identification of patients at risk of developing inhibitors may help to prevent this serious complication. However, currently there are no tools available to predict individual inhibitor risk in nonsevere hemophilia patients.The type of mutation in the factor VIII gene (F8) is an important risk factor for inhibitor development. [5][6][7] Nonsevere hemophilia A is generally caused by F8 missense mutations.8 Despite information on large numbers of F8 mutations associated with nonsevere hemophilia A that is collected in international databases, 9,10 it is not possible to calculate the inhibitor risk for specific F8 mutations, as data on exposure days to thera...

No abstract

The gray platelet syndrome is a hereditary, usually autosomal recessive bleeding disorder caused by a deficiency of alpha granules in platelets. We detected a nonsense mutation in the gene encoding the transcription factor GFI1B (growth factor independent 1B) that causes autosomal dominant gray platelet syndrome. Both gray platelets and megakaryocytes had abnormal marker expression. In addition, the megakaryocytes had dysplastic features, and they were abnormally distributed in the bone marrow. The GFI1B mutant protein inhibited nonmutant GFI1B transcriptional activity in a dominant-negative manner. Our studies show that GFI1B, in addition to being causally related to the gray platelet syndrome, is key to megakaryocyte and platelet development.

No abstract

In the last decade, apoptosis (or programmed cell death) has become appreciated as an important process in the development of the cardiovascular system. Moreover, apoptosis contributes to the adaptation of the system to the environment. We are at the beginning of understanding its relevance to cardiovascular physiology and pathology. This understanding forms the key to implement apoptosis in diagnosis and therapy of cardiovascular diseases. New avenues for pharmacological intervention are expected to arise from the synergy of our knowledge about the molecular mechanisms of apoptosis, and how apoptosis integrates in the complex environment of the cardiovascular tissue. The latter strongly depends on techniques to measure apoptosis. Currently, we are facing a relative paucity in available techniques, covering both specificity and sensitivity, and furthermore allowing quantitative analysis, preferably in combination with morphology. This field, however, is rapidly evolving and is fed by the expanding knowledge about the molecular mechanisms of apoptosis. In this paper we will briefly review the available techniques to detect and/or quantify apoptosis. These methods are based on the analysis of cellular morphology, either by light- or electron microscopy, DNA fragmentation (TdT-mediated X-dUTP nick end labeling or in situ nick end labeling), or cytoplasmic and membrane changes. Furthermore, the advantages and limitations of these techniques for their use in cardiovascular research will be outlined. In the text we will refer to available reviews and protocols which discuss the techniques in more detail. The main part of this article will, however, focus on a recently introduced technique, the Annexin V-based apoptosis detection assay. The principle, characteristics, pro's and contra's of this new apoptosis detection assay will be discussed.

No abstract