ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Lymphatic malformations can be challenging to treat. Mainstay interventions including surgery and sclerotherapy are invasive and can result in local recurrence and complications. OBJECTIVE: We sought to assess the effect of 20 weeks of oral sildenafil on reducing lymphatic malformation volume and symptoms in children. METHODS: Seven children (4 boys, 3 girls; ages 13-85 months) with lymphatic malformations were given oral sildenafil for 20 weeks in this open-label study. The volume of the lymphatic malformation was calculated blindly using magnetic resonance imaging performed before and after 20 weeks of sildenafil. Lymphatic malformations were assessed clinically on weeks 4, 12, 20, and 32. Both the physician and parents evaluated the lymphatic malformation in comparison with baseline. RESULTS: Four subjects had a lymphatic malformation volume decrease (1.0%-31.7%). In 2 subjects, despite a lymphatic malformation volume increase (1.1%-3.7%), clinical improvement was noted while on sildenafil. One subject had a 29.6% increase in lymphatic malformation volume and no therapeutic response. Lymphatic malformations of all 6 subjects who experienced a therapeutic response on sildenafil softened and became easily compressible. Adverse events were minimal. LIMITATIONS: A randomized controlled trial will be necessary to verify the effects of sildenafil on lymphatic malformations. CONCLUSIONS: Sildenafil can reduce lymphatic malformation volume and symptoms in some children.
Subject(s)
Lymphatic Abnormalities/diagnosis , Lymphatic Abnormalities/drug therapy , Piperazines/therapeutic use , Sulfones/therapeutic use , Administration, Oral , Child , Child, Preschool , Dose-Response Relationship, Drug , Drug Administration Schedule , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Infant , Magnetic Resonance Imaging/methods , Male , Prospective Studies , Purines/therapeutic use , Severity of Illness Index , Sildenafil Citrate , Time Factors , Treatment OutcomeSubject(s)
Drug Approval/legislation & jurisprudence , Animals , Clinical Trials as Topic , Drug Compounding , Drugs, Investigational/administration & dosage , Epidermolysis Bullosa/genetics , Epidermolysis Bullosa/therapy , Genetic Therapy/legislation & jurisprudence , Humans , United States , United States Food and Drug Administration/legislation & jurisprudenceABSTRACT
Olfaction depends on the differential activation of olfactory receptor neurons (ORNs) and on the proper transmission of their activities to the brain. ORNs select individual receptors to express, and they send axons to particular targets in the brain. Little is known about the molecular mechanisms underlying either process. We have identified a new Drosophila POU gene, pdm3, that is expressed in ORNs. Genetic analysis shows that pdm3 is required for odor response in one class of ORNs. We find that pdm3 acts in odor receptor expression in this class, and that the odor response can be rescued by the receptor. Another POU gene, acj6, is required for receptor expression in the same class, and we find a genetic interaction between the two POU genes. The results support a role for a POU gene code in receptor gene choice. pdm3 is also expressed in other ORN classes in which it is not required for receptor expression. For two of these classes, pdm3 is required for normal axon targeting. Thus, this mutational analysis, the first for a POU class VI gene, demonstrates a role for pdm3 in both of the processes that define the functional organization of ORNs in the olfactory system.
Subject(s)
Axons/physiology , Drosophila Proteins/genetics , Drosophila Proteins/physiology , Gene Expression/physiology , Homeodomain Proteins/genetics , Homeodomain Proteins/physiology , Olfactory Receptor Neurons/physiology , POU Domain Factors/genetics , POU Domain Factors/physiology , Receptors, Odorant/metabolism , Action Potentials/genetics , Animals , Animals, Genetically Modified , Drosophila , Drosophila Proteins/metabolism , Models, Biological , Mutation , Olfactory Bulb/cytologyABSTRACT
Cytokinesis in most eukaryotes requires the assembly and contraction of a ring of actin filaments and myosin II. The fission yeast Schizosaccharomyces pombe requires the formin Cdc12p and profilin (Cdc3p) early in the assembly of the contractile ring. The proline-rich formin homology (FH) 1 domain binds profilin, and the FH2 domain binds actin. Expression of a construct consisting of the Cdc12 FH1 and FH2 domains complements a conditional mutant of Cdc12 at the restrictive temperature, but arrests cells at the permissive temperature. Cells overexpressing Cdc12(FH1FH2)p stop growing with excessive actin cables but no contractile rings. Like capping protein, purified Cdc12(FH1FH2)p caps the barbed end of actin filaments, preventing subunit addition and dissociation, inhibits end to end annealing of filaments, and nucleates filaments that grow exclusively from their pointed ends. The maximum yield is one filament pointed end per six formin polypeptides. Profilins that bind both actin and poly-l-proline inhibit nucleation by Cdc12(FH1FH2)p, but polymerization of monomeric actin is faster, because the filaments grow from their barbed ends at the same rate as uncapped filaments. On the other hand, Cdc12(FH1FH2)p blocks annealing even in the presence of profilin. Thus, formins are profilin-gated barbed end capping proteins with the ability to initiate actin filaments from actin monomers bound to profilin. These properties explain why contractile ring assembly requires both formin and profilin and why viability depends on the ability of profilin to bind both actin and poly-l-proline.
