University of Verona

Background: in 2010, the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People (EWGSOP) published a sarcopenia definition that aimed to foster advances in identifying and caring for people with sarcopenia. In early 2018, the Working Group met again (EWGSOP2) to update the original definition in order to reflect scientific and clinical evidence that has built over the last decade. This paper presents our updated findings. Objectives: to increase consistency of research design, clinical diagnoses and ultimately, care for people with sarcopenia. Recommendations: sarcopenia is a muscle disease (muscle failure) rooted in adverse muscle changes that accrue across a lifetime; sarcopenia is common among adults of older age but can also occur earlier in life. In this updated consensus paper on sarcopenia, EWGSOP2: (1) focuses on low muscle strength as a key characteristic of sarcopenia, uses detection of low muscle quantity and quality to confirm the sarcopenia diagnosis, and identifies poor physical performance as indicative of severe sarcopenia; (2) updates the clinical algorithm that can be used for sarcopenia case-finding, diagnosis and confirmation, and severity determination and (3) provides clear cut-off points for measurements of variables that identify and characterise sarcopenia. Conclusions: EWGSOP2's updated recommendations aim to increase awareness of sarcopenia and its risk. With these new recommendations, EWGSOP2 calls for healthcare professionals who treat patients at risk for sarcopenia to take actions that will promote early detection and treatment. We also encourage more research in the field of sarcopenia in order to prevent or delay adverse health outcomes that incur a heavy burden for patients and healthcare systems.

The European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People (EWGSOP) developed a practical clinical definition and consensus diagnostic criteria for age-related sarcopenia. EWGSOP included representatives from four participant organisations, i.e. the European Geriatric Medicine Society, the European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism, the International Association of Gerontology and Geriatrics-European Region and the International Association of Nutrition and Aging. These organisations endorsed the findings in the final document. The group met and addressed the following questions, using the medical literature to build evidence-based answers: (i) What is sarcopenia? (ii) What parameters define sarcopenia? (iii) What variables reflect these parameters, and what measurement tools and cut-off points can be used? (iv) How does sarcopenia relate to cachexia, frailty and sarcopenic obesity? For the diagnosis of sarcopenia, EWGSOP recommends using the presence of both low muscle mass + low muscle function (strength or performance). EWGSOP variously applies these characteristics to further define conceptual stages as 'presarcopenia', 'sarcopenia' and 'severe sarcopenia'. EWGSOP reviewed a wide range of tools that can be used to measure the specific variables of muscle mass, muscle strength and physical performance. Our paper summarises currently available data defining sarcopenia cut-off points by age and gender; suggests an algorithm for sarcopenia case finding in older individuals based on measurements of gait speed, grip strength and muscle mass; and presents a list of suggested primary and secondary outcome domains for research. Once an operational definition of sarcopenia is adopted and included in the mainstream of comprehensive geriatric assessment, the next steps are to define the natural course of sarcopenia and to develop and define effective treatment.

AUTORES: Daniel J Klionsky1745,1749*, Kotb Abdelmohsen840, Akihisa Abe1237, Md Joynal Abedin1762, Hagai Abeliovich425,
\nAbraham Acevedo Arozena789, Hiroaki Adachi1800, Christopher M Adams1669, Peter D Adams57, Khosrow Adeli1981,
\nPeter J Adhihetty1625, Sharon G Adler700, Galila Agam67, Rajesh Agarwal1587, Manish K Aghi1537, Maria Agnello1826,
\nPatrizia Agostinis664, Patricia V Aguilar1960, Julio Aguirre-Ghiso784,786, Edoardo M Airoldi89,422, Slimane Ait-Si-Ali1376,
\nTakahiko Akematsu2010, Emmanuel T Akporiaye1097, Mohamed Al-Rubeai1394, Guillermo M Albaiceta1294,
\nChris Albanese363, Diego Albani561, Matthew L Albert517, Jesus Aldudo128, Hana Alg€ul1164, Mehrdad Alirezaei1198,
\nIraide Alloza642,888, Alexandru Almasan206, Maylin Almonte-Beceril524, Emad S Alnemri1212, Covadonga Alonso544,
\nNihal Altan-Bonnet848, Dario C Altieri1205, Silvia Alvarez1497, Lydia Alvarez-Erviti1395, Sandro Alves107,
\nGiuseppina Amadoro860, Atsuo Amano930, Consuelo Amantini1554, Santiago Ambrosio1458, Ivano Amelio756,
\nAmal O Amer918, Mohamed Amessou2089, Angelika Amon726, Zhenyi An1538, Frank A Anania291, Stig U Andersen6,
\nUsha P Andley2079, Catherine K Andreadi1690, Nathalie Andrieu-Abadie502, Alberto Anel2027, David K Ann58,
\nShailendra Anoopkumar-Dukie388, Manuela Antonioli832,858, Hiroshi Aoki1791, Nadezda Apostolova2007,
\nSaveria Aquila1500, Katia Aquilano1876, Koichi Araki292, Eli Arama2098, Agustin Aranda456, Jun Araya591,
\nAlexandre Arcaro1472, Esperanza Arias26, Hirokazu Arimoto1225, Aileen R Ariosa1749, Jane L Armstrong1930,
\nThierry Arnould1773, Ivica Arsov2120, Katsuhiko Asanuma675, Valerie Askanas1924, Eric Asselin1867, Ryuichiro Atarashi794,
\nSally S Atherton369, Julie D Atkin713, Laura D Attardi1131, Patrick Auberger1787, Georg Auburger379, Laure Aurelian1727,
\nRiccardo Autelli1992, Laura Avagliano1029,1755, Maria Laura Avantaggiati364, Limor Avrahami1166, Suresh Awale1986,
\nNeelam Azad404, Tiziana Bachetti568, Jonathan M Backer28, Dong-Hun Bae1933, Jae-sung Bae677, Ok-Nam Bae409,
\nSoo Han Bae2117, Eric H Baehrecke1729, Seung-Hoon Baek17, Stephen Baghdiguian1368,
\nAgnieszka Bagniewska-Zadworna2, Hua Bai90, Jie Bai667, Xue-Yuan Bai1133, Yannick Bailly884,
\nKithiganahalli Narayanaswamy Balaji473, Walter Balduini2002, Andrea Ballabio316, Rena Balzan1711, Rajkumar Banerjee239,
\nG abor B anhegyi1052, Haijun Bao2109, Benoit Barbeau1363, Maria D Barrachina2007, Esther Barreiro467, Bonnie Bartel997,
\nAlberto Bartolom e222, Diane C Bassham550, Maria Teresa Bassi1046, Robert C Bast Jr1273, Alakananda Basu1798,
\nMaria Teresa Batista1578, Henri Batoko1336, Maurizio Battino970, Kyle Bauckman2085, Bradley L Baumgarner1909,
\nK Ulrich Bayer1594, Rupert Beale1553, Jean-Fran¸cois Beaulieu1360, George R. Beck Jr48,294, Christoph Becker336,
\nJ David Beckham1595, Pierre-Andr e B edard749, Patrick J Bednarski301, Thomas J Begley1135, Christian Behl1419,
\nChristian Behrends757, Georg MN Behrens406, Kevin E Behrns1627, Eloy Bejarano26, Amine Belaid490,
\nFrancesca Belleudi1041, Giovanni B enard497, Guy Berchem706, Daniele Bergamaschi983, Matteo Bergami1401,
\nBen Berkhout1441, Laura Berliocchi714, Am elie Bernard1749, Monique Bernard1354, Francesca Bernassola1880,
\nAnne Bertolotti791, Amanda S Bess272, S ebastien Besteiro1351, Saverio Bettuzzi1828, Savita Bhalla913,
\nShalmoli Bhattacharyya973, Sujit K Bhutia838, Caroline Biagosch1159, Michele Wolfe Bianchi520,1378,1381,
\nMartine Biard-Piechaczyk210, Viktor Billes298, Claudia Bincoletto1314, Baris Bingol350, Sara W Bird1128, Marc Bitoun1112,
\nIvana Bjedov1258, Craig Blackstone843, Lionel Blanc1183, Guillermo A Blanco1496, Heidi Kiil Blomhoff1812,
\nEmilio Boada-Romero1297, Stefan B€ockler1464, Marianne Boes1423, Kathleen Boesze-Battaglia1835, Lawrence H Boise286,287,
\nAlessandra Bolino2063, Andrea Boman693, Paolo Bonaldo1823, Matteo Bordi897, J€urgen Bosch608, Luis M Botana1308,
\nJoelle Botti1375, German Bou1405, Marina Bouch e1038, Marion Bouchecareilh1331, Marie-Jos ee Boucher1901,
\nMichael E Boulton481, Sebastien G Bouret1926, Patricia Boya133, Micha€el Boyer-Guittaut1345, Peter V Bozhkov1141,
\nNathan Brady374, Vania MM Braga469, Claudio Brancolini1997, Gerhard H Braus353, Jos e M Bravo-San Pedro299,393,508,1374,
\nLisa A Brennan322, Emery H Bresnick2022, Patrick Brest490, Dave Bridges1939, Marie-Agn es Bringer124, Marisa Brini1822,
\nGlauber C Brito1311, Bertha Brodin631, Paul S Brookes1872, Eric J Brown352, Karen Brown1690, Hal E Broxmeyer480,
\nAlain Bruhat486,1339, Patricia Chakur Brum1893, John H Brumell446, Nicola Brunetti-Pierri315,1171,
\nRobert J Bryson-Richardson781, Shilpa Buch1777, Alastair M Buchan1819, Hikmet Budak1022, Dmitry V Bulavin118,505,1789,
\nScott J Bultman1792, Geert Bultynck665, Vladimir Bumbasirevic1470, Yan Burelle1356, Robert E Burke216,217,
\nMargit Burmeister1750, Peter B€utikofer1473, Laura Caberlotto1987, Ken Cadwell896, Monika Cahova112, Dongsheng Cai24,
\nJingjing Cai2099, Qian Cai1018, Sara Calatayud2007, Nadine Camougrand1343, Michelangelo Campanella1700,
\nGrant R Campbell1525, Matthew Campbell1249, Silvia Campello556,1876, Robin Candau1769, Isabella Caniggia1983,
\nLavinia Cantoni560, Lizhi Cao116, Allan B Caplan1656, Michele Caraglia1051, Claudio Cardinali1043, Sandra Morais Cardoso1579, Jennifer S Carew208, Laura A Carleton874, Cathleen R Carlin101, Silvia Carloni2002,
\nSven R Carlsson1267, Didac Carmona-Gutierrez1643, Leticia AM Carneiro312, Oliana Carnevali971, Serena Carra1318,
\nAlice Carrier120, Bernadette Carroll900, Caty Casas1324, Josefina Casas1116, Giuliana Cassinelli324, Perrine Castets1462,
\nSusana Castro-Obregon214, Gabriella Cavallini1841, Isabella Ceccherini568, Francesco Cecconi253,555,1884,
\nArthur I Cederbaum459, Valent ın Ce~na199,1281, Simone Cenci1323,2064, Claudia Cerella444, Davide Cervia1996,
\nSilvia Cetrullo1478, Hassan Chaachouay2028, Han-Jung Chae187, Andrei S Chagin634, Chee-Yin Chai626,628,
\nGopal Chakrabarti1502, Georgios Chamilos1601, Edmond YW Chan1142, Matthew TV Chan181, Dhyan Chandra1003,
\nPallavi Chandra548, Chih-Peng Chang818, Raymond Chuen-Chung Chang1653, Ta Yuan Chang345, John C Chatham1434,
\nSaurabh Chatterjee1910, Santosh Chauhan527, Yongsheng Che62, Michael E Cheetham1263, Rajkumar Cheluvappa1783,
\nChun-Jung Chen1153, Gang Chen598,1676, Guang-Chao Chen9, Guoqiang Chen1078, Hongzhuan Chen1077, Jeff W Chen1514,
\nJian-Kang Chen370,371, Min Chen249, Mingzhou Chen2104, Peiwen Chen1823, Qi Chen1674, Quan Chen172,
\nShang-Der Chen138, Si Chen325, Steve S-L Chen10, Wei Chen2125, Wei-Jung Chen829, Wen Qiang Chen979, Wenli Chen1113,
\nXiangmei Chen1133, Yau-Hung Chen1157, Ye-Guang Chen1250, Yin Chen1447, Yingyu Chen953,955, Yongshun Chen2135,
\nYu-Jen Chen712, Yue-Qin Chen1145, Yujie Chen1208, Zhen Chen339, Zhong Chen2123, Alan Cheng1702,
\nChristopher HK Cheng184, Hua Cheng1728, Heesun Cheong814, Sara Cherry1836, Jason Chesney1703,
\nChun Hei Antonio Cheung817, Eric Chevet1359, Hsiang Cheng Chi140, Sung-Gil Chi656, Fulvio Chiacchiera308,
\nHui-Ling Chiang958, Roberto Chiarelli1826, Mario Chiariello235,567,577, Marcello Chieppa835, Lih-Shen Chin290,
\nMario Chiong1285, Gigi NC Chiu878, Dong-Hyung Cho676, Ssang-Goo Cho650, William C Cho982, Yong-Yeon Cho105,
\nYoung-Seok Cho1064, Augustine MK Choi2095, Eui-Ju Choi656, Eun-Kyoung Choi387,400,685, Jayoung Choi1563,
\nMary E Choi2093, Seung-Il Choi2116, Tsui-Fen Chou412, Salem Chouaib395, Divaker Choubey1574, Vinay Choubey1936,
\nKuan-Chih Chow822, Kamal Chowdhury730, Charleen T Chu1856, Tsung-Hsien Chuang827, Taehoon Chun657,
\nHyewon Chung652, Taijoon Chung978, Yuen-Li Chung1194, Yong-Joon Chwae18, Valentina Cianfanelli254,
\nRoberto Ciarcia1775, Iwona A Ciechomska886, Maria Rosa Ciriolo1876, Mara Cirone1042, Sofie Claerhout1694,
\nMichael J Clague1698, Joan Cl aria1457, Peter GH Clarke1687, Robert Clarke361, Emilio Clementi1045,1398, C edric Cleyrat1781,
\nMiriam Cnop1366, Eliana M Coccia574, Tiziana Cocco1459, Patrice Codogno1375, J€orn Coers271, Ezra EW Cohen1533,
\nDavid Colecchia235,567,577, Luisa Coletto25, N uria S Coll123, Emma Colucci-Guyon516, Sergio Comincini1829,
\nMaria Condello578, Katherine L Cook2073, Graham H Coombs1929, Cynthia D Cooper2076, J Mark Cooper1395,
\nIsabelle Coppens601, Maria Tiziana Corasaniti1387, Marco Corazzari485,1884, Ramon Corbalan1566,
\nElisabeth Corcelle-Termeau251, Mario D Cordero1899, Cristina Corral-Ramos1289, Olga Corti507,1109, Andrea Cossarizza1767,
\nPaola Costelli1993, Safia Costes1518, Susan L Cotman721, Ana Coto-Montes946, Sandra Cottet566,1688, Eduardo Couve1301,
\nLori R Covey1015, L Ashley Cowart762, Jeffery S Cox1536, Fraser P Coxon1427, Carolyn B Coyne1846, Mark S Cragg1919,
\nRolf J Craven1679, Tiziana Crepaldi1995, Jose L Crespo1300, Alfredo Criollo1285, Valeria Crippa558, Maria Teresa Cruz1576,
\nAna Maria Cuervo26, Jose M Cuezva1277, Taixing Cui1907, Pedro R Cutillas987, Mark J Czaja27, Maria F Czyzyk-Krzeska1572,
\nRuben K Dagda2068, Uta Dahmen1404, Chunsun Dai800, Wenjie Dai1187, Yun Dai2059, Kevin N Dalby1940,
\nLuisa Dalla Valle1822, Guillaume Dalmasso1340, Marcello D’Amelio557, Markus Damme188, Arlette Darfeuille-Michaud1340,
\nCatherine Dargemont950, Victor M Darley-Usmar1433, Srinivasan Dasarathy205, Biplab Dasgupta202, Srikanta Dash1254,
\nCrispin R Dass242, Hazel Marie Davey8, Lester M Davids1560, David D avila227, Roger J Davis1731, Ted M Dawson604,
\nValina L Dawson606, Paula Daza1898, Jackie de Belleroche470, Paul de Figueiredo1180,1182,
\nRegina Celia Bressan Queiroz de Figueiredo135, Jos e de la Fuente1023, Luisa De Martino1775,
\nAntonella De Matteis1171, Guido RY De Meyer1443, Angelo De Milito631, Mauro De Santi2002,

Small noncoding microRNAs (miRNAs) can contribute to cancer development and progression and are differentially expressed in normal tissues and cancers. From a large-scale miRnome analysis on 540 samples including lung, breast, stomach, prostate, colon, and pancreatic tumors, we identified a solid cancer miRNA signature composed by a large portion of overexpressed miRNAs. Among these miRNAs are some with well characterized cancer association, such as miR-17-5p, miR-20a, miR-21, miR-92, miR-106a, and miR-155. The predicted targets for the differentially expressed miRNAs are significantly enriched for protein-coding tumor suppressors and oncogenes (P < 0.0001). A number of the predicted targets, including the tumor suppressors RB1 (Retinoblastoma 1) and TGFBR2 (transforming growth factor, beta receptor II) genes were confirmed experimentally. Our results indicate that miRNAs are extensively involved in cancer pathogenesis of solid tumors and support their function as either dominant or recessive cancer genes.

The fourth genome sequence of a flowering plant, the second of a woody plant species and the first for a fruit crop. These important boxes are ticked by the genome sequence published in this issue. The new sequence is particularly revealing about the role of gene duplication in the evolution of the flowering plants. But the reason why non-geneticists will turn to it is more to do with its commercial application: the crop is the grapevine (Vitis vinifera) and the variety is Pinot Noir. A French and Italian consortium has produced sequence and analysis of Vitis vinifera PN40024, a grapevine originally derived from Pinot Noir. As you might expect, the grapevine has twice as many terpene synthases as other sequenced plants; these enzymes contribute to resins, essential oils and aromas. The analysis of the first plant genomes provided unexpected evidence for genome duplication events in species that had previously been considered as true diploids on the basis of their genetics1,2,3. These polyploidization events may have had important consequences in plant evolution, in particular for species radiation and adaptation and for the modulation of functional capacities4,5,6,7,8,9,10. Here we report a high-quality draft of the genome sequence of grapevine (Vitis vinifera) obtained from a highly homozygous genotype. The draft sequence of the grapevine genome is the fourth one produced so far for flowering plants, the second for a woody species and the first for a fruit crop (cultivated for both fruit and beverage). Grapevine was selected because of its important place in the cultural heritage of humanity beginning during the Neolithic period11. Several large expansions of gene families with roles in aromatic features are observed. The grapevine genome has not undergone recent genome duplication, thus enabling the discovery of ancestral traits and features of the genetic organization of flowering plants. This analysis reveals the contribution of three ancestral genomes to the grapevine haploid content. This ancestral arrangement is common to many dicotyledonous plants but is absent from the genome of rice, which is a monocotyledon. Furthermore, we explain the chronology of previously described whole-genome duplication events in the evolution of flowering plants.

Abstract Somatic mutations in cancer genomes are caused by multiple mutational processes, each of which generates a characteristic mutational signature 1 . Here, as part of the Pan-Cancer Analysis of Whole Genomes (PCAWG) Consortium 2 of the International Cancer Genome Consortium (ICGC) and The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA), we characterized mutational signatures using 84,729,690 somatic mutations from 4,645 whole-genome and 19,184 exome sequences that encompass most types of cancer. We identified 49 single-base-substitution, 11 doublet-base-substitution, 4 clustered-base-substitution and 17 small insertion-and-deletion signatures. The substantial size of our dataset, compared with previous analyses 3–15 , enabled the discovery of new signatures, the separation of overlapping signatures and the decomposition of signatures into components that may represent associated—but distinct—DNA damage, repair and/or replication mechanisms. By estimating the contribution of each signature to the mutational catalogues of individual cancer genomes, we revealed associations of signatures to exogenous or endogenous exposures, as well as to defective DNA-maintenance processes. However, many signatures are of unknown cause. This analysis provides a systematic perspective on the repertoire of mutational processes that contribute to the development of human cancer.

BACKGROUND: Denosumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody to the receptor activator of nuclear factor-kappaB ligand (RANKL) that blocks its binding to RANK, inhibiting the development and activity of osteoclasts, decreasing bone resorption, and increasing bone density. Given its unique actions, denosumab may be useful in the treatment of osteoporosis. METHODS: We enrolled 7868 women between the ages of 60 and 90 years who had a bone mineral density T score of less than -2.5 but not less than -4.0 at the lumbar spine or total hip. Subjects were randomly assigned to receive either 60 mg of denosumab or placebo subcutaneously every 6 months for 36 months. The primary end point was new vertebral fracture. Secondary end points included nonvertebral and hip fractures. RESULTS: As compared with placebo, denosumab reduced the risk of new radiographic vertebral fracture, with a cumulative incidence of 2.3% in the denosumab group, versus 7.2% in the placebo group (risk ratio, 0.32; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26 to 0.41; P<0.001)--a relative decrease of 68%. Denosumab reduced the risk of hip fracture, with a cumulative incidence of 0.7% in the denosumab group, versus 1.2% in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.97; P=0.04)--a relative decrease of 40%. Denosumab also reduced the risk of nonvertebral fracture, with a cumulative incidence of 6.5% in the denosumab group, versus 8.0% in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.67 to 0.95; P=0.01)--a relative decrease of 20%. There was no increase in the risk of cancer, infection, cardiovascular disease, delayed fracture healing, or hypocalcemia, and there were no cases of osteonecrosis of the jaw and no adverse reactions to the injection of denosumab. CONCLUSIONS: Denosumab given subcutaneously twice yearly for 36 months was associated with a reduction in the risk of vertebral, nonvertebral, and hip fractures in women with osteoporosis. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00089791.)

Abstract Cancer is driven by genetic change, and the advent of massively parallel sequencing has enabled systematic documentation of this variation at the whole-genome scale 1–3 . Here we report the integrative analysis of 2,658 whole-cancer genomes and their matching normal tissues across 38 tumour types from the Pan-Cancer Analysis of Whole Genomes (PCAWG) Consortium of the International Cancer Genome Consortium (ICGC) and The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA). We describe the generation of the PCAWG resource, facilitated by international data sharing using compute clouds. On average, cancer genomes contained 4–5 driver mutations when combining coding and non-coding genomic elements; however, in around 5% of cases no drivers were identified, suggesting that cancer driver discovery is not yet complete. Chromothripsis, in which many clustered structural variants arise in a single catastrophic event, is frequently an early event in tumour evolution; in acral melanoma, for example, these events precede most somatic point mutations and affect several cancer-associated genes simultaneously. Cancers with abnormal telomere maintenance often originate from tissues with low replicative activity and show several mechanisms of preventing telomere attrition to critical levels. Common and rare germline variants affect patterns of somatic mutation, including point mutations, structural variants and somatic retrotransposition. A collection of papers from the PCAWG Consortium describes non-coding mutations that drive cancer beyond those in the TERT promoter 4 ; identifies new signatures of mutational processes that cause base substitutions, small insertions and deletions and structural variation 5,6 ; analyses timings and patterns of tumour evolution 7 ; describes the diverse transcriptional consequences of somatic mutation on splicing, expression levels, fusion genes and promoter activity 8,9 ; and evaluates a range of more-specialized features of cancer genomes 8,10–18 .

The genus Lactobacillus comprises 261 species (at March 2020) that are extremely diverse at phenotypic, ecological and genotypic levels. This study evaluated the taxonomy of Lactobacillaceae and Leuconostocaceae on the basis of whole genome sequences. Parameters that were evaluated included core genome phylogeny, (conserved) pairwise average amino acid identity, clade-specific signature genes, physiological criteria and the ecology of the organisms. Based on this polyphasic approach, we propose reclassification of the genus Lactobacillus into 25 genera including the emended genus Lactobacillus , which includes host-adapted organisms that have been referred to as the Lactobacillus delbrueckii group, Paralactobacillus and 23 novel genera for which the names Holzapfelia , Amylolactobacillus , Bombilactobacillus , Companilactobacillus , Lapidilactobacillus , Agrilactobacillus , Schleiferilactobacillus , Loigolactobacilus , Lacticaseibacillus , Latilactobacillus , Dellaglioa , Liquorilactobacillus , Ligilactobacillus , Lactiplantibacillus , Furfurilactobacillus , Paucilactobacillus , Limosilactobacillus , Fructilactobacillus , Acetilactobacillus , Apilactobacillus , Levilactobacillus , Secundilactobacillus and Lentilactobacillus are proposed. We also propose to emend the description of the family Lactobacillaceae to include all genera that were previously included in families Lactobacillaceae and Leuconostocaceae . The generic term ‘lactobacilli’ will remain useful to designate all organisms that were classified as Lactobacillaceae until 2020. This reclassification reflects the phylogenetic position of the micro-organisms, and groups lactobacilli into robust clades with shared ecological and metabolic properties, as exemplified for the emended genus Lactobacillus encompassing species adapted to vertebrates (such as Lactobacillus delbrueckii , Lactobacillus iners , Lactobacillus crispatus , Lactobacillus jensensii , Lactobacillus johnsonii and <jats:ext-link xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://doi.org/10.1601/nm.5326" xlink:type

Myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs) have emerged as major regulators of immune responses in cancer and other pathological conditions. In recent years, ample evidence supports key contributions of MDSC to tumour progression through both immune-mediated mechanisms and those not directly associated with immune suppression. MDSC are the subject of intensive research with >500 papers published in 2015 alone. However, the phenotypic, morphological and functional heterogeneity of these cells generates confusion in investigation and analysis of their roles in inflammatory responses. The purpose of this communication is to suggest characterization standards in the burgeoning field of MDSC research.

BACKGROUND: The effect of adjuvant treatment on survival in pancreatic cancer is unclear. We report the final results of the European Study Group for Pancreatic Cancer 1 Trial and update the interim results. METHODS: In a multicenter trial using a two-by-two factorial design, we randomly assigned 73 patients with resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma to treatment with chemoradiotherapy alone (20 Gy over a two-week period plus fluorouracil), 75 patients to chemotherapy alone (fluorouracil), 72 patients to both chemoradiotherapy and chemotherapy, and 69 patients to observation. RESULTS: The analysis was based on 237 deaths among the 289 patients (82 percent) and a median follow-up of 47 months (interquartile range, 33 to 62). The estimated five-year survival rate was 10 percent among patients assigned to receive chemoradiotherapy and 20 percent among patients who did not receive chemoradiotherapy (P=0.05). The five-year survival rate was 21 percent among patients who received chemotherapy and 8 percent among patients who did not receive chemotherapy (P=0.009). The benefit of chemotherapy persisted after adjustment for major prognostic factors. CONCLUSIONS: Adjuvant chemotherapy has a significant survival benefit in patients with resected pancreatic cancer, whereas adjuvant chemoradiotherapy has a deleterious effect on survival.

autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether the homeostasis model assessment (HOMA) is a reliable surrogate measure of in vivo insulin sensitivity in humans. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In the present study, we compared insulin sensitivity as assessed by a 4-h euglycemic (approximately 5 mmol/l) hyperinsulinemic (approximately 300 pmol/l) clamp with HOMA in 115 subjects with various degrees of glucose tolerance and insulin sensitivity. RESULTS: We found a strong correlation between clamp-measured total glucose disposal and HOMA-estimated insulin sensitivity (r = -0.820, P<0.0001), with no substantial differences between men (r = -0.800) and women (r = -0.796), younger (aged <50 years, r = -0.832) and older (r = -0.800) subjects, nonobese (BMI <27 kg/m2, r = -0.800) and obese (r = -0.765) subjects, nondiabetic (r = -0.754) and diabetic (r = -0.695) subjects, and normotensive ( r = -0.786) and hypertensive (r = -0.762) subjects. Also, we found good agreement between the two methods in the categorization of subjects according to insulin sensitivity (weighted k = 0.63). CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that the HOMA can be reliably used in large-scale or epidemiological studies in which only a fasting blood sample is available to assess insulin sensitivity

Pancreatic stellate cells (PSCs) differentiate into cancer-associated fibroblasts (CAFs) that produce desmoplastic stroma, thereby modulating disease progression and therapeutic response in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDA). However, it is unknown whether CAFs uniformly carry out these tasks or if subtypes of CAFs with distinct phenotypes in PDA exist. We identified a CAF subpopulation with elevated expression of α-smooth muscle actin (αSMA) located immediately adjacent to neoplastic cells in mouse and human PDA tissue. We recapitulated this finding in co-cultures of murine PSCs and PDA organoids, and demonstrated that organoid-activated CAFs produced desmoplastic stroma. The co-cultures showed cooperative interactions and revealed another distinct subpopulation of CAFs, located more distantly from neoplastic cells, which lacked elevated αSMA expression and instead secreted IL6 and additional inflammatory mediators. These findings were corroborated in mouse and human PDA tissue, providing direct evidence for CAF heterogeneity in PDA tumor biology with implications for disease etiology and therapeutic development.

The International Cancer Genome Consortium (ICGC) was launched to coordinate large-scale cancer genome studies in tumours from 50 different cancer types and/or subtypes that are of clinical and societal importance across the globe. Systematic studies of more than 25,000 cancer genomes at the genomic, epigenomic and transcriptomic levels will reveal the repertoire of oncogenic mutations, uncover traces of the mutagenic influences, define clinically relevant subtypes for prognosis and therapeutic management, and enable the development of new cancer therapies.

Tumor-infiltrating myeloid cells such as myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs) and tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) form an important component of the hypoxic tumor microenvironment. Here, we investigated the influence of hypoxia on immune checkpoint receptors (programmed death [PD]-1 and CTLA-4) and their respective ligands (PD-1 ligand 1 [PD-L1], PD-L2, CD80, and CD86) on MDSCs. We demonstrate that MDSCs at the tumor site show a differential expression of PD-L1 as compared with MDSCs from peripheral lymphoid organ (spleen). Hypoxia caused a rapid, dramatic, and selective up-regulation of PD-L1 on splenic MDSCs in tumor-bearing mice. This was not limited to MDSCs, as hypoxia also significantly increased the expression of PD-L1 on macrophages, dendritic cells, and tumor cells. Furthermore, PD-L1 up-regulation under hypoxia was dependent on hypoxia-inducible factor-1α (HIF-1α) but not HIF-2α. Chromatin immunoprecipitation and luciferase reporter assay revealed direct binding of HIF-1α to a transcriptionally active hypoxia-response element (HRE) in the PD-L1 proximal promoter. Blockade of PD-L1 under hypoxia enhanced MDSC-mediated T cell activation and was accompanied by the down-regulation of MDSCs IL-6 and IL-10. Finally, neutralizing antibodies against IL-10 under hypoxia significantly abrogated the suppressive activity of MDSCs. Simultaneous blockade of PD-L1 along with inhibition of HIF-1α may thus represent a novel approach for cancer immunotherapy.

Background As coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic rages on, there is urgent need for identification of clinical and laboratory predictors for progression towards severe and fatal forms of this illness. In this study we aimed to evaluate the discriminative ability of hematologic, biochemical and immunologic biomarkers in patients with and without the severe or fatal forms of COVID-19. Methods An electronic search in Medline (PubMed interface), Scopus, Web of Science and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) was performed, to identify studies reporting on laboratory abnormalities in patients with COVID-19. Studies were divided into two separate cohorts for analysis: severity (severe vs. non-severe and mortality, i.e. non-survivors vs. survivors). Data was pooled into a meta-analysis to estimate weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for each laboratory parameter. Results A total number of 21 studies was included, totaling 3377 patients and 33 laboratory parameters. While 18 studies (n = 2984) compared laboratory findings between patients with severe and non-severe COVID-19, the other three (n = 393) compared survivors and non-survivors of the disease and were thus analyzed separately. Patients with severe and fatal disease had significantly increased white blood cell (WBC) count, and decreased lymphocyte and platelet counts compared to non-severe disease and survivors. Biomarkers of inflammation, cardiac and muscle injury, liver and kidney function and coagulation measures were also significantly elevated in patients with both severe and fatal COVID-19. Interleukins 6 (IL-6) and 10 (IL-10) and serum ferritin were strong discriminators for severe disease. Conclusions Several biomarkers which may potentially aid in risk stratification models for predicting severe and fatal COVID-19 were identified. In hospitalized patients with respiratory distress, we recommend clinicians closely monitor WBC count, lymphocyte count, platelet count, IL-6 and serum ferritin as markers for potential progression to critical illness.

OBJECTIVE: to examine the clinical evidence reporting the prevalence of sarcopenia and the effect of nutrition and exercise interventions from studies using the consensus definition of sarcopenia proposed by the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People (EWGSOP). METHODS: PubMed and Dialog databases were searched (January 2000-October 2013) using pre-defined search terms. Prevalence studies and intervention studies investigating muscle mass plus strength or function outcome measures using the EWGSOP definition of sarcopenia, in well-defined populations of adults aged ≥50 years were selected. RESULTS: prevalence of sarcopenia was, with regional and age-related variations, 1-29% in community-dwelling populations, 14-33% in long-term care populations and 10% in the only acute hospital-care population examined. Moderate quality evidence suggests that exercise interventions improve muscle strength and physical performance. The results of nutrition interventions are equivocal due to the low number of studies and heterogeneous study design. Essential amino acid (EAA) supplements, including ∼2.5 g of leucine, and β-hydroxy β-methylbutyric acid (HMB) supplements, show some effects in improving muscle mass and function parameters. Protein supplements have not shown consistent benefits on muscle mass and function. CONCLUSION: prevalence of sarcopenia is substantial in most geriatric settings. Well-designed, standardised studies evaluating exercise or nutrition interventions are needed before treatment guidelines can be developed. Physicians should screen for sarcopenia in both community and geriatric settings, with diagnosis based on muscle mass and function. Supervised resistance exercise is recommended for individuals with sarcopenia. EAA (with leucine) and HMB may improve muscle outcomes.

The application of anaerobic digestion technology is growing worldwide because of its economic and environmental benefits. As a consequence, a number of studies and research activities dealing with the determination of the biogas potential of solid organic substrates have been carrying out in the recent years. Therefore, it is of particular importance to define a protocol for the determination of the ultimate methane potential for a given solid substrates. In fact, this parameter determines, to a certain extent, both design and economic details of a biogas plant. Furthermore, the definition of common units to be used in anaerobic assays is increasingly requested from the scientific and engineering community. This paper presents some guidelines for biomethane potential assays prepared by the Task Group for the Anaerobic Biodegradation, Activity and Inhibition Assays of the Anaerobic Digestion Specialist Group of the International Water Association. This is the first step for the definition of a standard protocol.