The Human Gut Colonizer Blastocystis Respires Using Complex II and Alternative Oxidase to Buffer Transient Oxygen Fluctuations in the Gut.

Blastocystis is the most common eukaryotic microbe in the human gut. It is linked to irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), but its role in disease has been contested considering its widespread nature. This organism is well-adapted to its anoxic niche and lacks typical eukaryotic features, such as a cytochrome-driven mitochondrial electron transport. Although generally considered a strict or obligate anaerobe, its genome encodes an alternative oxidase. Alternative oxidases are energetically wasteful enzymes as they are non-protonmotive and energy is liberated in heat, but they are considered to be involved in oxidative stress protective mechanisms. Our results demonstrate that the Blastocystis cells themselves respire oxygen via this alternative oxidase thereby casting doubt on its strict anaerobic nature. Inhibition experiments using alternative oxidase and Complex II specific inhibitors clearly demonstrate their role in cellular respiration. We postulate that the alternative oxidase in Blastocystis is used to buffer transient oxygen fluctuations in the gut and that it likely is a common colonizer of the human gut and not causally involved in IBS. Additionally the alternative oxidase could act as a protective mechanism in a dysbiotic gut and thereby explain the absence of Blastocystis in established IBS environments.

Osteoporosis therapy and outcomes for postmenopausal patients with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer: NCIC CTG MA.27.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer patients in the MA.27 trial had similar outcomes with steroidal aromatase inhibitor (AI) exemestane and nonsteroidal anastrozole. AIs increase the risk of osteoporosis. This study examined the effects of self-reported osteoporosis and osteoporosis therapy (OPT) on outcomes. METHODS: The MA.27 phase 3 adjuvant trial enrolled 7576 postmenopausal women. The primary outcome was event-free survival (EFS), and the secondary outcome was distant disease-free survival (DDFS). Patients were permitted bisphosphonates to prevent or treat osteopenia/osteoporosis. In a multivariate, stratified Cox regression, factors were significant with a 2-sided Wald test P value ≤ .05. RESULTS: Osteoporosis was reported at the baseline by 654 of the 7576 women (8.6%) and in total by 1294 patients. Oral OPT was received at the baseline by 815 of the 7576 women (10.8%) and in total by 2711 patients (36%). With a median follow-up of 4.1 years, 693 EFS events (9.15%) and 321 DDFS events (4.2%) occurred. Osteoporosis was not associated with EFS or DDFS. Few EFS events occurred before the initiation of OPT, with no substantive evidence of a time-differing effect on outcomes (nonproportional hazards). OPT (yes vs no) was significantly associated with improved EFS (hazard ratio [HR] for yes vs no, 0.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.57-0.80; P < .001) and DDFS (HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.44-0.73; P <. 001). Time-differing (time-dependent) OPT was not (EFS; P = .45). OPT did not alter the incidence of visceral-only metastasis (P = .31). CONCLUSIONS: Oral OPT, administered to postmenopausal breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant AI therapy, was associated with improved EFS and DDFS; the time of OPT initiation (a time-dependent effect) did not affect the outcome. OPT did not alter the risk of visceral metastasis. Cancer 2017;123:2444-51. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Effects of adjuvant exemestane versus anastrozole on bone mineral density for women with early breast cancer (MA.27B): a companion analysis of a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of breast cancer with aromatase inhibitors is associated with damage to bones. NCIC CTG MA.27 was an open-label, phase 3, randomised controlled trial in which women with breast cancer were assigned to one of two adjuvant oral aromatase inhibitors-exemestane or anastrozole. We postulated that exemestane-a mildly androgenic steroid-might have a less detrimental effect on bone than non-steroidal anastrozole. In this companion study to MA.27, we compared changes in bone mineral density (BMD) in the lumbar spine and total hip between patients treated with exemestane and patients treated with anastrozole. METHODS: In MA.27, postmenopausal women with early stage hormone (oestrogen) receptor-positive invasive breast cancer were randomly assigned to exemestane 25 mg versus anastrozole 1 mg, daily. MA.27B recruited two groups of women from MA.27: those with BMD T-scores of -2·0 or more (up to 2 SDs below sex-matched, young adult mean) and those with at least one T-score (hip or spine) less than -2·0. Both groups received vitamin D and calcium; those with baseline T-scores of less than -2·0 also received bisphosphonates. The primary endpoints were percent change of BMD at 2 years in lumbar spine and total hip for both groups. We analysed patients according to which aromatase inhibitor and T-score groups they were allocated to but BMD assessments ceased if patients deviated from protocol. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00354302. FINDINGS: Between April 24, 2006, and May 30, 2008, 300 patients with baseline T-scores of -2·0 or more were accrued (147 allocated exemestane, 153 anastrozole); and 197 patients with baseline T-scores of less than -2·0 (101 exemestane, 96 anastrozole). For patients with T-scores greater than -2·0 at baseline, mean change of bone mineral density in the spine at 2 years did not differ significantly between patients taking exemestane and patients taking anastrozole (-0·92%, 95% CI -2·35 to 0·50 vs -2·39%, 95% CI -3·77 to -1·01; p=0·08). Respective mean loss in the hip was -1·93% (95% CI -2·93 to -0·93) versus -2·71% (95% CI -4·32 to -1·11; p=0·10). Likewise for those who started with T-scores of less than -2·0, mean change of spine bone mineral density at 2 years did not differ significantly between the exemestane and anastrozole treatment groups (2·11%, 95% CI -0·84 to 5·06 vs 3·72%, 95% CI 1·54 to 5·89; p=0·26), nor did hip bone mineral density (2·09%, 95% CI -1·45 to 5·63 vs 0·0%, 95% CI -3·67 to 3·66; p=0·28). Patients with baseline T-score of -2·0 or more taking exemestane had two fragility fractures and two other fractures, those taking anastrozole had three fragility fractures and five other fractures. For patients who had baseline T-scores of less than -2·0 taking exemestane, one had a fragility fracture and four had other fractures, whereas those taking anastrozole had five fragility fractures and one other fracture. INTERPRETATION: Our results demonstrate that adjuvant treatment with aromatase inhibitors can be considered for breast cancer patients who have T-scores less than -2·0. FUNDING: Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute, Pfizer, Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

Mammographic breast density response to aromatase inhibition.

PURPOSE: Mammographic breast density (MBD) is decreased by tamoxifen, but the effect of aromatase inhibitors is less clear. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: We enrolled early-stage postmenopausal patients with breast cancer initiating adjuvant aromatase inhibitor therapy and ascertained mammograms before and at an average 10 months of aromatase inhibitor therapy. We matched cases to healthy postmenopausal women (controls) from a large mammography screening cohort on age, baseline body mass index, baseline MBD, and interval between mammograms. We estimated change in MBD using a computer-assisted thresholding program (Cumulus) and compared differences between cases and matched controls. RESULTS: In predominantly White women (96%), we found 14% of the 387 eligible cases had a MBD reduction of at least 5% after an average of 10 months of aromatase inhibitor therapy. MBD reductions were associated with higher baseline MBD, aromatase inhibitor use for more than 12 months, and prior postmenopausal hormone use. Comparing each case with her matched control, there was no evidence of an association of change in MBD with aromatase inhibitor therapy [median case-control difference among 369 pairs was -0.1% (10th and 90th percentile: -5.9%, 5.2%) P = 0.51]. Case-control differences were similar by type of aromatase inhibitor (P's 0.41 and 0.56); prior use of postmenopausal hormones (P = 0.85); baseline MBD (P = 0.55); and length of aromatase inhibitor therapy (P = 0.08). CONCLUSIONS: In postmenopausal women treated with aromatase inhibitors, 14% of cases had a MBD reduction of more than 5%, but these decreases did not differ from matched controls. These data suggest that MBD is not a clinically useful biomarker for predicting the value of aromatase inhibitor therapy in White postmenopausal women.