Diagnostic value of α-enolase expression and serum α-enolase autoantibody levels in lung cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the diagnostic value of α-enolase (ENO1) and serum ENO1 autoantibody levels in lung cancer. METHODS: Immunohistochemistry staining and ELISA were performed to detect ENO1 expression in lung tissue and serum ENO1 autoantibody levels, respectively. RESULTS: The expression of ENO1 was higher in lung cancer tissues than in benign lung disease tissues (p < 0.001). The proportion of lung cancer samples expressing ENO1 was not significantly different among the various pathological classification groups. The proportion of samples expressing ENO1 was higher in lung cancer patients in stages I/II than in those in stages III/IV (χ2 = 5.445; p = 0.018). The expression of ENO1 in lung cancer tissues was not associated with age, gender, or smoking history. Serum ENO1 antibody levels were significantly higher in the lung cancer group than in the benign lung disease and control groups (p < 0.001). The differences among the pathological classification groups were not statistically significant. Serum ENO1 antibody levels were also in lung cancer patients in stages I/II than in those in stages III/IV (p < 0.01). Serum ENO1 antibody levels were not associated with age, gender, or smoking history in lung cancer patients. The ROC curve representing the diagnosis of lung cancer based on ENO1 antibody levels had an area under the curve of 0.806. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that high levels of ENO1 are associated with the clinical stage of lung cancer and that ENO1 expression and its serum autoantibody levels show diagnostic value in lung cancer.

Diagnostic value of α-enolase expression and serum α-enolase autoantibody levels in lung cancer / Valor diagnóstico da expressão de α-enolase e dos níveis séricos de autoanticorpos contra α-enolase no câncer de pulmão

ABSTRACT Objective: To investigate the diagnostic value of α-enolase (ENO1) and serum ENO1 autoantibody levels in lung cancer. Methods: Immunohistochemistry staining and ELISA were performed to detect ENO1 expression in lung tissue and serum ENO1 autoantibody levels, respectively. Results: The expression of ENO1 was higher in lung cancer tissues than in benign lung disease tissues (p < 0.001). The proportion of lung cancer samples expressing ENO1 was not significantly different among the various pathological classification groups. The proportion of samples expressing ENO1 was higher in lung cancer patients in stages I/II than in those in stages III/IV (χ2 = 5.445; p = 0.018). The expression of ENO1 in lung cancer tissues was not associated with age, gender, or smoking history. Serum ENO1 antibody levels were significantly higher in the lung cancer group than in the benign lung disease and control groups (p < 0.001). The differences among the pathological classification groups were not statistically significant. Serum ENO1 antibody levels were also in lung cancer patients in stages I/II than in those in stages III/IV (p < 0.01). Serum ENO1 antibody levels were not associated with age, gender, or smoking history in lung cancer patients. The ROC curve representing the diagnosis of lung cancer based on ENO1 antibody levels had an area under the curve of 0.806. Conclusions: Our results suggest that high levels of ENO1 are associated with the clinical stage of lung cancer and that ENO1 expression and its serum autoantibody levels show diagnostic value in lung cancer.

RESUMO Objetivo: Investigar o valor diagnóstico da α-enolase (ENO1) e dos níveis séricos de autoanticorpos contra ENO1 no câncer de pulmão. Métodos: Marcação imuno-histoquímica e ELISA foram realizados para detectar a expressão de ENO1 no tecido pulmonar e os níveis séricos de autoanticorpos contra ENO1, respectivamente. Resultados: A expressão de ENO1 foi maior nos tecidos de câncer de pulmão que nos tecidos de doença pulmonar benigna (p < 0,001). Não houve diferença significativa entre os diversos grupos de classificação patológica quanto à proporção de amostras de câncer de pulmão que expressaram ENO1. A proporção de amostras que expressaram ENO1 foi maior nos pacientes com câncer de pulmão nos estágios I/II que naqueles com câncer de pulmão nos estágios III/IV (χ2 = 5,445; p = 0,018). Não houve relação entre a expressão de ENO1 em tecidos de câncer de pulmão e idade, sexo ou histórico de tabagismo. Os níveis séricos de anticorpos contra ENO1 foram significativamente maiores no grupo câncer de pulmão que nos grupos doença pulmonar benigna e controle (p < 0,001). As diferenças entre os grupos de classificação patológica não foram estatisticamente significativas. Os níveis séricos de anticorpos contra ENO1 foram também significativamente maiores nos pacientes com câncer de pulmão nos estágios I/II que naqueles com câncer de pulmão nos estágios III/IV (p < 0,01). Nos pacientes com câncer de pulmão, não houve relação entre os níveis séricos de anticorpos contra ENO1 e idade, sexo ou histórico de tabagismo. A curva ROC do diagnóstico de câncer de pulmão baseado nos níveis de anticorpos contra ENO1 apresentou área sob a curva = 0,806. Conclusões: Nossos resultados sugerem que há relação entre níveis elevados de ENO1 e o estágio clínico do câncer de pulmão e que a expressão de ENO1 e os níveis séricos de autoanticorpos contra ENO1 têm valor diagnóstico no câncer de pulmão.

Propofol exerts anti-inflammatory effects in rats with lipopolysaccharide-induced acute lung injury by inhibition of CD14 and TLR4 expression.

We investigated the effect of propofol (Prop) administration (10 mg kg-1 h-1, intravenously) on lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-induced acute lung injury and its effect on cluster of differentiation (CD) 14 and Toll-like receptor (TLR) 4 expression in lung tissue of anesthetized, ventilated rats. Twenty-four male Wistar rats were randomly divided into three groups of 8 rats each: control, LPS, and LPS+Prop. Lung injury was assayed via blood gas analysis and lung histology, and tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) and interleukin-1ß (IL-1ß) levels were determined in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid using ELISA. Real-time polymerase chain reaction was used to detect CD14 and TLR4 mRNA levels, and CD14 and TLR4 protein expression was determined by Western blot. The pathological scores were 1.2 ± 0.9, 3.3 ± 1.1, and 1.9 ± 1.0 for the control, LPS, and LPS+Prop groups, respectively, with statistically significant differences between control and LPS groups (P < 0.05) and between LPS and LPS+Prop groups (P < 0.05). The administration of LPS resulted in a significant increase in TNF-α and IL-1ß levels, 7- and 3.5-fold, respectively (P < 0.05), while treatment with propofol partially blunted the secretion of both cytokines (P < 0.05). CD14 and TLR4 mRNA levels were increased in the LPS group (1.48 ± 0.05 and 1.26 ± 0.03, respectively) compared to the control group (1.00 ± 0.20 and 1.00 ± 0.02, respectively; P < 0.05), while propofol treatment blunted this effect (1.16 ± 0.05 and 1.12 ± 0.05, respectively; P < 0.05). Both CD14 and TLR4 protein levels were elevated in the LPS group compared to the control group (P < 0.05), while propofol treatment partially decreased the expression of CD14 and TLR4 protein versus LPS alone (P < 0.05). Our study indicates that propofol prevents lung injury, most likely by inhibition of CD14 and TLR4 expression.

Propofol exerts anti-inflammatory effects in rats with lipopolysaccharide-induced acute lung injury by inhibition of CD14 and TLR4 expression

We investigated the effect of propofol (Prop) administration (10 mg kg-1 h-1, intravenously) on lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-induced acute lung injury and its effect on cluster of differentiation (CD) 14 and Toll-like receptor (TLR) 4 expression in lung tissue of anesthetized, ventilated rats. Twenty-four male Wistar rats were randomly divided into three groups of 8 rats each: control, LPS, and LPS+Prop. Lung injury was assayed via blood gas analysis and lung histology, and tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) and interleukin-1β (IL-1β) levels were determined in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid using ELISA. Real-time polymerase chain reaction was used to detect CD14 and TLR4 mRNA levels, and CD14 and TLR4 protein expression was determined by Western blot. The pathological scores were 1.2 ± 0.9, 3.3 ± 1.1, and 1.9 ± 1.0 for the control, LPS, and LPS+Prop groups, respectively, with statistically significant differences between control and LPS groups (P < 0.05) and between LPS and LPS+Prop groups (P < 0.05). The administration of LPS resulted in a significant increase in TNF-α and IL-1β levels, 7- and 3.5-fold, respectively (P < 0.05), while treatment with propofol partially blunted the secretion of both cytokines (P < 0.05). CD14 and TLR4 mRNA levels were increased in the LPS group (1.48 ± 0.05 and 1.26 ± 0.03, respectively) compared to the control group (1.00 ± 0.20 and 1.00 ± 0.02, respectively; P < 0.05), while propofol treatment blunted this effect (1.16 ± 0.05 and 1.12 ± 0.05, respectively; P < 0.05). Both CD14 and TLR4 protein levels were elevated in the LPS group compared to the control group (P < 0.05), while propofol treatment partially decreased the expression of CD14 and TLR4 protein versus LPS alone (P < 0.05). Our study indicates that propofol prevents lung injury, most likely by inhibition of CD14 and TLR4 expression.

Favipiravir (T-705) inhibits Junín virus infection and reduces mortality in a guinea pig model of Argentine hemorrhagic fever.

BACKGROUND: Junín virus (JUNV), the etiologic agent of Argentine hemorrhagic fever (AHF), is classified by the NIAID and CDC as a Category A priority pathogen. Presently, antiviral therapy for AHF is limited to immune plasma, which is readily available only in the endemic regions of Argentina. T-705 (favipiravir) is a broadly active small molecule RNA-dependent RNA polymerase inhibitor presently in clinical evaluation for the treatment of influenza. We have previously reported on the in vitro activity of favipiravir against several strains of JUNV and other pathogenic New World arenaviruses. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: To evaluate the efficacy of favipiravir in vivo, guinea pigs were challenged with the pathogenic Romero strain of JUNV, and then treated twice daily for two weeks with oral or intraperitoneal (i.p.) favipiravir (300 mg/kg/day) starting 1-2 days post-infection. Although only 20% of animals treated orally with favipiravir survived the lethal challenge dose, those that succumbed survived considerably longer than guinea pigs treated with placebo. Consistent with pharmacokinetic analysis that showed greater plasma levels of favipiravir in animals dosed by i.p. injection, i.p. treatment resulted in a substantially higher level of protection (78% survival). Survival in guinea pigs treated with ribavirin was in the range of 33-40%. Favipiravir treatment resulted in undetectable levels of serum and tissue viral titers and prevented the prominent thrombocytopenia and leucopenia observed in placebo-treated animals during the acute phase of infection. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: The remarkable protection afforded by i.p. favipiravir intervention beginning 2 days after challenge is the highest ever reported for a small molecule antiviral in the difficult to treat guinea pig JUNV challenge model. These findings support the continued development of favipiravir as a promising antiviral against JUNV and other related arenaviruses.