Intra-articular implantation of gentamicin impregnated collagen sponge causes joint inflammation and impaired renal function in dogs.

OBJECTIVE: Gentamicin impregnated collagen sponge (GICS) can be used to treat intra-articular surgical site infections. High local concentrations of gentamicin can be reached for short periods; however the collagen vehicle may persist for much longer periods. We wished to determine the effect of sponge implantation on joint inflammation and renal function. METHODS: Eighteen medium sized mixed breed research dogs of hound type were randomized to two groups; arthroscopic implantation of GICS at gentamicin dose = 6 mg/kg (n = 9) or sham operation (n = 9). Endpoints consisted of joint inflammation measured by synovial fluid cell counts and cytokine concentrations; lameness measured by force plate asymmetry indices; and renal function measured by glomerular filtration rate (GFR) study. The prevalence of lesions associated with aminoglycoside nephrotoxicity was assessed by renal biopsy and transmission electron microscopy. RESULTS: Gentamicin impregnated collagen sponge implantation caused joint inflammation (p <0.01), lameness (p = 0.04), and decreased GFR (p = 0.04). No difference was observed in the prevalence of renal lesions on biopsy between the treatment and control groups (p = 0.49). CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Gentamicin impregnated collagen sponge implantation causes joint inflammation and lameness as well as GFR reductions at the dose assessed. Gentamicin impregnated collagen sponge are not recommended for intra-articular implantation in dogs.

Binding specificities and potential roles of isoforms of eukaryotic initiation factor 4E in Leishmania.

The 5' cap structure of trypanosomatid mRNAs, denoted cap 4, is a complex structure that contains unusual modifications on the first four nucleotides. We examined the four eukaryotic initiation factor 4E (eIF4E) homologues found in the Leishmania genome database. These proteins, denoted LeishIF4E-1 to LeishIF4E-4, are located in the cytoplasm. They show only a limited degree of sequence homology with known eIF4E isoforms and among themselves. However, computerized structure prediction suggests that the cap-binding pocket is conserved in each of the homologues, as confirmed by binding assays to m(7)GTP, cap 4, and its intermediates. LeishIF4E-1 and LeishIF4E-4 each bind m(7)GTP and cap 4 comparably well, and only these two proteins could interact with the mammalian eIF4E binding protein 4EBP1, though with different efficiencies. 4EBP1 is a translation repressor that competes with eIF4G for the same residues on eIF4E; thus, LeishIF4E-1 and LeishIF4E-4 are reasonable candidates for serving as translation factors. LeishIF4E-1 is more abundant in amastigotes and also contains a typical 3' untranslated region element that is found in amastigote-specific genes. LeishIF4E-2 bound mainly to cap 4 and comigrated with polysomal fractions on sucrose gradients. Since the consensus eIF4E is usually found in 48S complexes, LeishIF4E-2 could possibly be associated with the stabilization of trypanosomatid polysomes. LeishIF4E-3 bound mainly m(7)GTP, excluding its involvement in the translation of cap 4-protected mRNAs. It comigrates with 80S complexes which are resistant to micrococcal nuclease, but its function is yet unknown. None of the isoforms can functionally complement the Saccharomyces cerevisiae eIF4E, indicating that despite their structural conservation, they are considerably diverged.