Friendly E. coli may protect the gut from their deadly cousin – Medical News Today

A study suggests that a harmless strain of Escherichia coli called Nissle 1917 primes the small intestine to defend itself against another strain that causes potentially fatal infections.

Most strains of the bacterium E. coli are benign, but some can cause severe illness, including stomach cramps, vomiting, and diarrhea. The bacteria can spread via contaminated food and water or through contact with an animal or person who has the infection.

Other strains can cause urinary tract infections, respiratory illness, and pneumonia.

Some of the most dangerous E. coli strains produce a toxin called Shiga. In the United States, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimate that these strains are responsible for 265,000 infections annually.

They note that a strain called E. coli O157 causes about 36% of these infections. E. coli O157 can infect people of all ages, but infections can be particularly severe, and even fatal, in younger children.

Antibiotics are unsuitable for treating these infections because they can provoke the bacteria to produce more Shiga toxin, which can trigger a potentially fatal kidney condition called hemolytic uremic syndrome.

Right now, there is no cure for an E. coli infection, says Alison Weiss, Ph.D., a professor at the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, OH. We can give individuals fluids, but [the infection] can be really deadly, and it would be really nice for us to figure out how to cure it.

Weiss and her colleague Suman Pradhan, Ph.D., wondered whether a probiotic could prevent infections, based on observations dating back to the early 20th century.

For more than 100 years, doctors have used a friendly E. coli strain called Nissle to prevent and treat infectious diarrhea.

Alfred Nissle, a German physician and researcher, first isolated the strain from the feces of a soldier during the First World War.

In 1917, Dr. Nissle noticed that in contrast to his fellow soldiers, the man did not develop diarrhea during an outbreak of the highly contagious bacterial infection shigellosis.

More than a century later, the strain of E. coli that was named after Nissle is the active component of a probiotic called Mutaflor that doctors in Europe, Canada, and Australia use to treat infectious diarrhea, chronic constipation, and inflammatory bowel disease.

Research in mice in 2009 suggested that Nissle could also protect people against infection with E. coli O157.

However, Weiss and Pradhan were concerned that this strain could have adapted to cause disease in humans, while leading to only mild symptoms, if any, in mice.

Studies in mice may, therefore, be a poor indicator of how good Nissle is at protecting people.

To get a better idea, the researchers used human pluripotent stem cells to create human intestinal organoids, which are tiny living models of the small intestine.

Pluripotent stem cells are universal progenitor cells that, under the right conditions, can differentiate into any tissue in the body.

This ability meant that the researchers were able to ensure that the organoids contained all the major cell types that are present in the lining of the human intestine.

As in a real intestine, each organoid comprised a space or lumen that a single layer of cells (an epithelium) enclosed.

When the researchers injected E. coli O157:H7 into the lumen of the organoid, within hours, the bacteria had destroyed the epithelium. A closely related strain called uropathogenic E. coli CFT073 had the same effect.

In contrast, when the researchers injected Nissle into the organoids, the bacteria did not appear to harm the epithelium.

More importantly, when they injected the pathogenic strains into these Nissle-containing organoids, the bacteria were no longer able to damage the epithelium.

Rather than outcompeting the pathogens, Nissle seems to prime the epithelium to defend itself against them.

Nissle did not kill pathogenic E. coli but rather ramps up your intestinal responses and prepares you for possible pathogens attacking the intestine, says Weiss. We dont know how it does this, but our study confirms its effectiveness in human cells. Our hope is to figure out how this is happening.

The studys findings appear online in mBio, which is the journal of the American Society for Microbiology.

The researchers believe that human intestinal organoids provide a more reliable test of the safety and efficacy of probiotics than either animal models or cell cultures.

They write:

[M]any human intestinal pathogens cannot be adequately modeled in cell culture or experimental animals, such as mice, and it is not clear whether information from these surrogate infection models is reliable enough to guide medical practice. Stem cell-derived human tissues, such as [human intestinal organoids], provide a powerful alternative to traditional experimental approaches.

However, they caution that while Nissle may be effective in preventing infection, it may not be safe to use as a treatment for existing E. coli O157:H7 infections. They say that their work suggests that, in common with some antibiotics, Nissle may provoke increased production of Shiga toxin.

Link:
Friendly E. coli may protect the gut from their deadly cousin - Medical News Today

Blood and Bone Marrow Cancer Treatment Market Size,Forecast 2025 Industry Chain Analysis, Segmentation, Opportunities with Top Application Such as…

Analysis of the Global Blood and Bone Marrow Cancer Treatment Market

The presented report on the global Blood and Bone Marrow Cancer Treatment market offers valuable insights related to the future prospects of the Blood and Bone Marrow Cancer Treatment market. The study evaluates the various parameters that are expected to influence the growth of the Blood and Bone Marrow Cancer Treatment market over the forecast period including the current trends, regulatory framework, and evolving policy structure across different regions.

As per the study, the Blood and Bone Marrow Cancer Treatment market is poised to exceed the value of ~US$XX by the end of 2019 and grow at a CAGR of ~XX% during the considered forecast period, 20XX-20XX. The growth opportunities for established and emerging market players, drivers of the market, and existing challenges in the Blood and Bone Marrow Cancer Treatment market are thoroughly analyzed.

Get PDF Sample Copy of this Report to understand the structure of the complete report: (Including Full TOC, List of Tables & Figures, Chart) @ https://www.researchmoz.com/enquiry.php?type=S&repid=2705147&source=atm

Blood and Bone Marrow Cancer Treatment Market Bifurcation

By Region

The regional assessment included in the Blood and Bone Marrow Cancer Treatment market sheds light on the scenario of the Blood and Bone Marrow Cancer Treatment market in various geographies. The scope of growth, market share, size, and future prospects of the Blood and Bone Marrow Cancer Treatment market in each regional market is illustrated in the report along with informative graphs and figures.

Competitive Assessment

The completion landscape of the Blood and Bone Marrow Cancer Treatment market is accurately depicted in the report. The report includes the company profiles of some of the leading companies in the Blood and Bone Marrow Cancer Treatment market wherein the product portfolio, pricing structure, and market share of each company is provided.

segment by Type, the product can be split into Chemotherapy Immunotherapy Stem Cell Transplant Radiotherapy Market segment by Application, split into Multiple Myeloma Leukemia Lymphoma Others

Market segment by Regions/Countries, this report covers North America Europe China Japan Southeast Asia India Central & South America

The study objectives of this report are: To analyze global Blood and Bone Marrow Cancer Treatment status, future forecast, growth opportunity, key market and key players. To present the Blood and Bone Marrow Cancer Treatment development in North America, Europe, China, Japan, Southeast Asia, India and Central & South America. To strategically profile the key players and comprehensively analyze their development plan and strategies. To define, describe and forecast the market by type, market and key regions.

In this study, the years considered to estimate the market size of Blood and Bone Marrow Cancer Treatment are as follows: History Year: 2015-2019 Base Year: 2019 Estimated Year: 2020 Forecast Year 2020 to 2026 For the data information by region, company, type and application, 2019 is considered as the base year. Whenever data information was unavailable for the base year, the prior year has been considered.

Do You Have Any Query Or Specific Requirement? Ask to Our Industry [emailprotected] https://www.researchmoz.com/enquiry.php?type=E&repid=2705147&source=atm

Vital Information that can be drawn from the Blood and Bone Marrow Cancer Treatment Market Report

The report aims to address the following queries related to the Blood and Bone Marrow Cancer Treatment market:

You can Buy This Report from Here @ https://www.researchmoz.com/checkout?rep_id=2705147&licType=S&source=atm

See the article here:
Blood and Bone Marrow Cancer Treatment Market Size,Forecast 2025 Industry Chain Analysis, Segmentation, Opportunities with Top Application Such as...

Latest Report on Cancer Stem Cell Therapy Market to Grow Significantly With Increasing Advancements in Technology, Says QYR – Owned

LOS ANGELES, United States: QY Research has recently published a report, titled Global Cancer Stem Cell Therapy Market Size, Status and Forecast 2020-2026. The research report gives the potential headway openings that prevails in the global market. The report is amalgamated depending on research procured from primary and secondary information. The global Cancer Stem Cell Therapy market is relied upon to develop generously and succeed in volume and value during the predicted time period. Moreover, the report gives nitty gritty data on different manufacturers, region, and products which are important to totally understanding the market.

Key Companies/Manufacturers operating in the global Cancer Stem Cell Therapy market include: AVIVA BioSciences, AdnaGen, Advanced Cell Diagnostics, Silicon Biosystems

Get PDF Sample Copy of the Report to understand the structure of the complete report: (Including Full TOC, List of Tables & Figures, Chart) :

https://www.qyresearch.com/sample-form/form/1528706/global-cancer-stem-cell-therapy-market

Segmental Analysis

Both developed and emerging regions are deeply studied by the authors of the report. The regional analysis section of the report offers a comprehensive analysis of the global Cancer Stem Cell Therapy market on the basis of region. Each region is exhaustively researched about so that players can use the analysis to tap into unexplored markets and plan powerful strategies to gain a foothold in lucrative markets.

Global Cancer Stem Cell Therapy Market Segment By Type:

Autologous Stem Cell Transplants Allogeneic Stem Cell Transplants Syngeneic Stem Cell Transplants Other Cancer Stem Cell Therapy

Global Cancer Stem Cell Therapy Market Segment By Application:

Hospital Clinic Medical Research Institution Other

Competitive Landscape

Competitor analysis is one of the best sections of the report that compares the progress of leading players based on crucial parameters, including market share, new developments, global reach, local competition, price, and production. From the nature of competition to future changes in the vendor landscape, the report provides in-depth analysis of the competition in the global Cancer Stem Cell Therapy market.

Key companies operating in the global Cancer Stem Cell Therapy market include AVIVA BioSciences, AdnaGen, Advanced Cell Diagnostics, Silicon Biosystems

Key questions answered in the report:

For Discount, Customization in the Report: https://www.qyresearch.com/customize-request/form/1528706/global-cancer-stem-cell-therapy-market

TOC

1 Report Overview 1.1 Study Scope 1.2 Key Market Segments 1.3 Players Covered: Ranking by Cancer Stem Cell Therapy Revenue 1.4 Market by Type 1.4.1 Global Cancer Stem Cell Therapy Market Size Growth Rate by Type: 2020 VS 2026 1.4.2 Autologous Stem Cell Transplants 1.4.3 Allogeneic Stem Cell Transplants 1.4.4 Syngeneic Stem Cell Transplants 1.4.5 Other 1.5 Market by Application 1.5.1 Global Cancer Stem Cell Therapy Market Share by Application: 2020 VS 2026 1.5.2 Hospital 1.5.3 Clinic 1.5.4 Medical Research Institution 1.5.5 Other 1.6 Study Objectives 1.7 Years Considered 2 Global Growth Trends 2.1 Global Cancer Stem Cell Therapy Market Perspective (2015-2026) 2.2 Global Cancer Stem Cell Therapy Growth Trends by Regions 2.2.1 Cancer Stem Cell Therapy Market Size by Regions: 2015 VS 2020 VS 2026 2.2.2 Cancer Stem Cell Therapy Historic Market Share by Regions (2015-2020) 2.2.3 Cancer Stem Cell Therapy Forecasted Market Size by Regions (2021-2026) 2.3 Industry Trends and Growth Strategy 2.3.1 Market Top Trends 2.3.2 Market Drivers 2.3.3 Market Challenges 2.3.4 Porters Five Forces Analysis 2.3.5 Cancer Stem Cell Therapy Market Growth Strategy 2.3.6 Primary Interviews with Key Cancer Stem Cell Therapy Players (Opinion Leaders) 3 Competition Landscape by Key Players 3.1 Global Top Cancer Stem Cell Therapy Players by Market Size 3.1.1 Global Top Cancer Stem Cell Therapy Players by Revenue (2015-2020) 3.1.2 Global Cancer Stem Cell Therapy Revenue Market Share by Players (2015-2020) 3.1.3 Global Cancer Stem Cell Therapy Market Share by Company Type (Tier 1, Tier 2 and Tier 3) 3.2 Global Cancer Stem Cell Therapy Market Concentration Ratio 3.2.1 Global Cancer Stem Cell Therapy Market Concentration Ratio (CR5 and HHI) 3.2.2 Global Top 10 and Top 5 Companies by Cancer Stem Cell Therapy Revenue in 2019 3.3 Cancer Stem Cell Therapy Key Players Head office and Area Served 3.4 Key Players Cancer Stem Cell Therapy Product Solution and Service 3.5 Date of Enter into Cancer Stem Cell Therapy Market 3.6 Mergers & Acquisitions, Expansion Plans 4 Market Size by Type (2015-2026) 4.1 Global Cancer Stem Cell Therapy Historic Market Size by Type (2015-2020) 4.2 Global Cancer Stem Cell Therapy Forecasted Market Size by Type (2021-2026) 5 Market Size by Application (2015-2026) 5.1 Global Cancer Stem Cell Therapy Market Size by Application (2015-2020) 5.2 Global Cancer Stem Cell Therapy Forecasted Market Size by Application (2021-2026) 6 North America 6.1 North America Cancer Stem Cell Therapy Market Size (2015-2020) 6.2 Cancer Stem Cell Therapy Key Players in North America (2019-2020) 6.3 North America Cancer Stem Cell Therapy Market Size by Type (2015-2020) 6.4 North America Cancer Stem Cell Therapy Market Size by Application (2015-2020) 7 Europe 7.1 Europe Cancer Stem Cell Therapy Market Size (2015-2020) 7.2 Cancer Stem Cell Therapy Key Players in Europe (2019-2020) 7.3 Europe Cancer Stem Cell Therapy Market Size by Type (2015-2020) 7.4 Europe Cancer Stem Cell Therapy Market Size by Application (2015-2020) 8 China 8.1 China Cancer Stem Cell Therapy Market Size (2015-2020) 8.2 Cancer Stem Cell Therapy Key Players in China (2019-2020) 8.3 China Cancer Stem Cell Therapy Market Size by Type (2015-2020) 8.4 China Cancer Stem Cell Therapy Market Size by Application (2015-2020) 9 Japan 9.1 Japan Cancer Stem Cell Therapy Market Size (2015-2020) 9.2 Cancer Stem Cell Therapy Key Players in Japan (2019-2020) 9.3 Japan Cancer Stem Cell Therapy Market Size by Type (2015-2020) 9.4 Japan Cancer Stem Cell Therapy Market Size by Application (2015-2020) 10 Southeast Asia 10.1 Southeast Asia Cancer Stem Cell Therapy Market Size (2015-2020) 10.2 Cancer Stem Cell Therapy Key Players in Southeast Asia (2019-2020) 10.3 Southeast Asia Cancer Stem Cell Therapy Market Size by Type (2015-2020) 10.4 Southeast Asia Cancer Stem Cell Therapy Market Size by Application (2015-2020) 11 India 11.1 India Cancer Stem Cell Therapy Market Size (2015-2020) 11.2 Cancer Stem Cell Therapy Key Players in India (2019-2020) 11.3 India Cancer Stem Cell Therapy Market Size by Type (2015-2020) 11.4 India Cancer Stem Cell Therapy Market Size by Application (2015-2020) 12 Central & South America 12.1 Central & South America Cancer Stem Cell Therapy Market Size (2015-2020) 12.2 Cancer Stem Cell Therapy Key Players in Central & South America (2019-2020) 12.3 Central & South America Cancer Stem Cell Therapy Market Size by Type (2015-2020) 12.4 Central & South America Cancer Stem Cell Therapy Market Size by Application (2015-2020) 13 Key Players Profiles 13.1 AVIVA BioSciences 13.1.1 AVIVA BioSciences Company Details 13.1.2 AVIVA BioSciences Business Overview 13.1.3 AVIVA BioSciences Cancer Stem Cell Therapy Introduction 13.1.4 AVIVA BioSciences Revenue in Cancer Stem Cell Therapy Business (2015-2020)) 13.1.5 AVIVA BioSciences Recent Development 13.2 AdnaGen 13.2.1 AdnaGen Company Details 13.2.2 AdnaGen Business Overview 13.2.3 AdnaGen Cancer Stem Cell Therapy Introduction 13.2.4 AdnaGen Revenue in Cancer Stem Cell Therapy Business (2015-2020) 13.2.5 AdnaGen Recent Development 13.3 Advanced Cell Diagnostics 13.3.1 Advanced Cell Diagnostics Company Details 13.3.2 Advanced Cell Diagnostics Business Overview 13.3.3 Advanced Cell Diagnostics Cancer Stem Cell Therapy Introduction 13.3.4 Advanced Cell Diagnostics Revenue in Cancer Stem Cell Therapy Business (2015-2020) 13.3.5 Advanced Cell Diagnostics Recent Development 13.4 Silicon Biosystems 13.4.1 Silicon Biosystems Company Details 13.4.2 Silicon Biosystems Business Overview 13.4.3 Silicon Biosystems Cancer Stem Cell Therapy Introduction 13.4.4 Silicon Biosystems Revenue in Cancer Stem Cell Therapy Business (2015-2020) 13.4.5 Silicon Biosystems Recent Development 14 Analysts Viewpoints/Conclusions 15 Appendix 15.1 Research Methodology 15.1.1 Methodology/Research Approach 15.1.2 Data Source 15.2 Disclaimer 15.3 Author Details

About Us:

QYResearch always pursuits high product quality with the belief that quality is the soul of business. Through years of effort and supports from huge number of customer supports, QYResearch consulting group has accumulated creative design methods on many high-quality markets investigation and research team with rich experience. Today, QYResearch has become the brand of quality assurance in consulting industry.

See the original post:
Latest Report on Cancer Stem Cell Therapy Market to Grow Significantly With Increasing Advancements in Technology, Says QYR - Owned

Tag: Stem Cell Therapy Growth – Cole of Duty

"Global Stem Cell Therapy Market Assessment Report: Present & Forecast Evaluation"is a comprehensive blend of qualitative and quantitative analysis in terms of Stem Cell Therapy market size, demand, revenue, gross margin, value, and volume. The whole research study is segmented based on regions, product type, application, and top companies operating in Stem Cell Therapy Market. The report begins with the introduction on Stem Cell Therapy Industry, drivers, restraints, trends, PEST analysis, PORTERs Five Forces analysis. The macro-economic factors, Stem Cell Therapy manufacturing cost, industry chain structure and pricing analysis are conducted. The pandemic impact in terms of production, demand, profit, growth scope is covered in our latest report updated in June 2020.

Browse More Details Or Receive Free Sample Copy With Graphs & Charts: https://www.reportscheck.com/shop/2021-2026-report-on-global-stem-cell-therapy-market-by-player-region-type-application-and-sales-channel/

The Stem Cell Therapy production, market performance over past and present years, opportunity mapping, investment feasibility and growth orbits are specified in this research report. The regional markets share of every industry player, product type and application is studied which is as follows:

Top Companies Involved in Stem Cell Therapy Industry are: Osiris Therapeutics NuVasive Chiesi Pharmaceuticals JCRPharmaceutical Pharmicell Medi-post Anterogen Molmed Takeda (TiGenix)

Top Product Types Evaluated are: Autologous Allogeneic

Top Applications studied are: Musculoskeletal Disorder Wounds & Injuries Cornea Cardiovascular Diseases Others

To derive the vital Stem Cell Therapy Industry aspects like market share, revenue, production, demand various primary interviews and interactions are carried out with industry experts like VPs, CEOs, Marketing Managers, R&D Managers, distributors, national sales mangers of top companies. Primary and performance analysis is carried out by interviewing the distributors, traders, dealers and more. The most crucial segment like Stem Cell Therapy Market competition and trends is studied in this report.

Ask Any Query, Request Custom Information or View Report TOC: https://www.reportscheck.com/shop/2021-2026-report-on-global-stem-cell-therapy-market-by-player-region-type-application-and-sales-channel/

The report evaluates the positive and negative impact of ongoing situations on Stem Cell Therapy Industry with forecast opportunities and CAGR value. The historical and present industry situations, market trends, technological innovations, regulations, upcoming technologies, and challenges are covered. The Stem Cell Therapy Market revenue is expected to surpass US$ XX Million by 2021 with a growth rate of xx.xx% from 2021-2027.

Regional Perspective and Stem Cell Therapy Analysis:

The market scope and regional division include North America, Europe, Asia-Pacific, Middle East & Africa, South America, and Rest of the World. The industry presence in the Asia-Pacific region is expected to expand at a good pace due to the increase in production facilities, existing players developing new opportunities and new players emerging in Stem Cell Therapy Market. North America is expected to reach a higher market share followed by the European region. Demand for Stem Cell Therapy products and its relevant applications across different market segments is growing rapidly.

Stem Cell Therapy Market Analysis Based on Top Companies:

After the market competition and overview by top players, company profiles of every Stem Cell Therapy Industry player is provided in detail. This segment covers the company overview, business portfolio, production details & description, vital financials, developments, SWOT analysis, and more. Top companies across the globe are profiled in this research study. The report can be customized based on the users choice and more players can be added as per requirements.

The forecast Stem Cell Therapy industry vision covers the market size estimation, growth driving factors, risk analysis & mitigation, new entrants SWOT analysis, and investment feasibility.

Key Assessments & Stem Cell Therapy Market Research Report Highlights:

Thanks for reading our article. For any queries, questions, or custom requirements feel free to reach us or contact our analyst. We offer the report as per the clients stated scenario.

Contact Us:

Olivia Martin

Marketing Manager

Email: [emailprotected]

Website:www.reportscheck.com

Read the rest here:
Tag: Stem Cell Therapy Growth - Cole of Duty

Stem Cell Manufacturing Industry with COVID 19 Impact Market Size, Share, Industry Analysis, Top Manufacturers, Applications, Demand and Forecast to…

Stem Cell Manufacturing Market Research Report 2020 provides global industry analysis in depth study of Share, Size, Growth Margin, Top Manufacturers, key players, Demand, Applications. The report also provides a basic overview of the industry including definitions, applications and industry chain structure and Regional Industry Report. Finally the feasibility of new investment projects are assessed and overall research conclusions offered. This report also presents product specification, manufacturing process, and product cost structure.

Get Sample Copy at https://www.orianresearch.com/request-sample/1607118

According to orian research, the Global Stem Cell Manufacturing Market is estimated to reach xxx million USD in 2020 and projected to grow at the CAGR of xx% during the 2021-2026. The report analyses the global Stem Cell Manufacturing market, the market size and growth, as well as the major market participants.

Key Company Coverage(Company Profile, Sales Revenue, Price, Gross Margin, Main Products etc.):

Thermo Fisher Scientific (US)

Merck Group (Germany)

Becton, Dickinson and Company (US)

Bio-Rad Laboratories (US)

Miltenyi Biotec (Germany)

Takara Bio Group (Japan)

STEMCELL Technologies (Canada)

No. of Pages: 61

Development policies and plans are discussed as well as manufacturing processes and industry chain structure is analyzed. This report also states import/export, supply and consumption figures as well as manufacturing cost, global revenue and presents gross margin by regions like North America, Europe, Japan, China and other countries (India, Southeast Asia, Central & South America, Middle East & Africa etc.)

Product Type Coverage (Market Size & Forecast, Major Company of Product Type etc.):

HSCs

MSCs

iPSCs

Application Coverage (Market Size & Forecast, Different Demand Market by Region, Main Consumer Profile etc.):

Research

Target Identification

Key Regions

Asia Pacific

North America

Europe

South America

Middle East & Africa

The report focuses on Stem Cell ManufacturingMarketmajor leading industry players with information such as company profiles, product picture and specification, capacity, production, price, cost, revenue and contact information. Upstream raw materials, equipment and downstream consumers analysis is also carried out. Whats more, the Stem Cell Manufacturing industry development Trends and marketing channels are analyzed. Finally, the feasibility of new investment projects is assessed, and overall research conclusions are offered. In a word, the report provides major statistics on the state of the industry and is a valuable source of guidance and direction for companies and individuals interested in the market.

Major Points Covered in Table of Contents:

1 Industrial Chain Overview

2 Global Production & Consumption by Geography

3 Major Manufacturers Introduction

4 Market Competition Pattern

5 Product Type Segment

6 End-Use Segment

7 Market Forecast & Trend

8.1 Price and Cost

8.1.1 Price

8.1.2 Cost

Figure Cost Component Ratio

8.2 Channel Segment

9 Market Drivers & Investment Environment

9.1 Market Drivers

9.2 Investment Environment

9.3 Impact of Coronavirus on the Stem Cell Manufacturing Industry

9.3.1 Impact on Industry Upstream

9.3.2 Impact on Industry Downstream

9.3.3 Impact on Industry Channels

9.3.4 Impact on Industry Competition

9.3.5 Impact on Industry Employment

10 Research Conclusion

Main Aspects covered in the Report

Overview of the Stem Cell Manufacturing market including production, consumption, status & forecast and market growth

2016-2020 historical data and 2021-2026 market forecast

Geographical analysis including major countries

Overview the product type market including development

Overview the end-user market including development

Impact of Coronavirus on the Industry

About Us

Orian Research is one of the most comprehensive collections of market intelligence reports on the World Wide Web. Our reports repository boasts of over 500000+ industry and country research reports from over 100 top publishers. We continuously update our repository so as to provide our clients easy access to the worlds most complete and current database of expert insights on global industries, companies, and products. We also specialize in custom research in situations where our syndicate research offerings do not meet the specific requirements of our esteemed clients.

Contact Us

Ruwin Mendez

Vice President Global Sales & Partner Relations

Orian Research Consultants

US: +1 (832) 380-8827 | UK: +44 0161-818-8027

Email: [emailprotected]

See the article here:
Stem Cell Manufacturing Industry with COVID 19 Impact Market Size, Share, Industry Analysis, Top Manufacturers, Applications, Demand and Forecast to...

3D Cell Culture Market 2020 | Remarkable Growth Factors with Industry Size & Share, New Innovations of Leading Players & Forecast till 2024 -…

Nano 3D Biosciences

Scope of the Report:

This report analyzes and discusses the 3D cell culture market. The market has been segmented on the basis of technology, application, end user, and geography. Based on technology, the market has been segmented into extracellular matrices (scaffolds), bioreactors, gels, scaffold-free platforms, microchips, and other technologies. The market, based on application, has been divided into research, drug discovery, tissue engineering, clinical applications, stem cell biology, and other applications. Based on end user, the market has been segregated into research laboratories and institutes, biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, hospitals and diagnostic centers, and others end users.

The Report Covers:

For More Information or Query or Customization Before Buying, Visit at https://www.industryresearch.co/enquiry/pre-order-enquiry/13999714

Key Market Trends:

Drug Discovery Segment is Expected to Exhibit the Fastest Growth Rate Over the Forecast Period

Conventionally, drug discovery has been carried out using animal models. However, with the explosion of drug molecules synthesized/discovered in the past two decades, there has been a growth in high-throughput screening. Consequently, drug discovery has become a process that was time-resource intensive. Additionally, animal testing is subject to ethical controversies. Consequently, the demand for alternative methods for drug testing and drug discovery processes has gained momentum.

A specific application of 3D cell culture in drug discovery is organ-on-chips. These systems are being extensively employed by cancer therapeutic manufacturers for improving the benefit-risk balance by targeting precisely a particular cell type, a defined biomechanism, or a precise receptor. The current up-trend in cancer therapeutics research is likely to further spur the application of 3D cell cultures in drug discovery. Over the forecast period, much novel cancer therapeutics are expected to receive market approval, which is likely to, in turn, drive the growth of the 3D cell culture market.

North America Captured the Largest Market Share and is Expected to Retain its Dominance

North America dominated the overall 3D cell culture market with the United States accounting as the major contributor to the market. The United States is focusing more on R&D and is currently spending a lot on it. This has resulted in increasing technological advancements in the country. Many American applicants feature among the main patent applicants for the 3D cell culture domain. American applicants tend to develop their technologies in the United States, as well as in Asia. In 2016, an international collaboration between the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands, cancer-research heavy-weights, aimed to grow 1,000 new cell lines for scientists to study. The project is also expected to use cutting-edge techniques to generate its models, which will include 3D cultures called organoids, and cells that have been reprogrammed to grow indefinitely in culture. ICTDCCS 2018, 20th International Conference on 3D Cell Culture Systems, was held in Boston (the United States) on April 23-24, 2018. These factors have augmented the US 3D cell culture market and it is expected to further increase in the future.

Key Questions Answered in This Report:

Purchase this Report (Price 4250 USD for single user license) https://www.industryresearch.co/purchase/13999714

Detailed TOC of 3D Cell Culture Market 2019-2024:

1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Study Deliverables 1.2 Study Assumptions 1.3 Scope of the Study

2 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

4 MARKET DYNAMICS 4.1 Market Overview 4.2 Introduction to Market Drivers and Restraints 4.3 Market Drivers 4.3.1 Huge R&D Investment by Life Science Companies 4.3.2 Development of Automated Large-scale Cell Culture Systems 4.3.3 Rising Need for Organ Transplantation 4.3.4 Use of 3D Cell Culture Models as Alternative Tools for In Vivo Testing 4.3.5 Increasing Focus on Regenerative Medicine 4.4 Market Restraints 4.4.1 Lack of Experienced and Skilled Professionals 4.4.2 Budget Restriction for Small- and Medium-sized Laboratories 4.4.3 Lack of Consistency in 3D Cell Culture Products 4.4.4 Stringent Process Controls for Advanced Handling Capabilities 4.5 Industry Attractiveness- Porters Five Forces Analysis 4.5.1 Threat of New Entrants 4.5.2 Bargaining Power of Buyers/Consumers 4.5.3 Bargaining Power of Suppliers 4.5.4 Threat of Substitute Products 4.5.5 Intensity of Competitive Rivalry

5 MARKET SEGMENTATION 5.1 By Technology 5.1.1 Extracellular Matrices (Scafffolds) 5.1.2 Bioreactors 5.1.3 Gels 5.1.4 Scaffold-free Platforms 5.1.5 Microchips 5.1.6 Other Technologies 5.2 By Application 5.2.1 Research 5.2.2 Drug Discovery 5.2.3 Tissue Engineering 5.2.4 Clinical Applications 5.2.5 Stem Cell Biology 5.2.6 Other Applications 5.3 By End User 5.3.1 Research Laboratories and Institutes 5.3.2 Biotechnology and Pharmaceutical Companies 5.3.3 Hospitals and Diagnostic Centers 5.3.4 Other End Users 5.4 Geography 5.4.1 North America 5.4.1.1 US 5.4.1.2 Canada 5.4.1.3 Mexico 5.4.2 Europe 5.4.2.1 UK 5.4.2.2 Germany 5.4.2.3 France 5.4.2.4 Italy 5.4.2.5 Spain 5.4.2.6 Rest of Europe 5.4.3 Asia-Pacific 5.4.3.1 China 5.4.3.2 Japan 5.4.3.3 India 5.4.3.4 Australia 5.4.3.5 South Korea 5.4.3.6 Rest of Asia-Pacific 5.4.4 Middle East & Africa 5.4.4.1 GCC 5.4.4.2 South Africa 5.4.4.3 Rest of Middle East & Africa 5.4.5 South America 5.4.5.1 Brazil 5.4.5.2 Argentina 5.4.5.3 Rest of South America

6 COMPETITIVE LANDSCAPE 6.1 Company Profiles 6.1.1 3D Biotek LLC 6.1.2 Becton Dickinson and Company 6.1.3 Sigma Aldrich Corporation 6.1.4 Corning Incorporated 6.1.5 Thermo Fisher Scientific 6.1.6 Global Cell Solutions Inc. 6.1.7 Nanofiber Solutions Incorporation 6.1.8 Insphero AG 6.1.9 Lonza Group 6.1.10 Nano 3D Biosciences

7 MARKET OPPORTUNITIES AND FUTURE TRENDS

Contact Us:

Name: Ajay More

Phone: US +14242530807/ UK +44 20 3239 8187

Email: [emailprotected]

Our Other Reports:

Food and Beverage Insurance Market 2020 Industry Trends Analysis with Impressive Growth Rate, Worldwide Overview of Companies, Competitors Analysis, and Global Opportunities Forecast to 2024

Mobile Radiography Units Market Size, Share | Growth Analysis by Revenue, Future Demand Status, Price Analysis by Types and Applications till 2020-2026

General Purpose HSMs Market Growth, Industry Trends 2020 Size by Regions, Global Industry Share, Sales Revenue and Opportunities till 2026 with COVID-19 Impact

Heavy Conveyor Belts Market Size, Share | Growth Analysis by Revenue, Future Demand Status, Price Analysis by Types and Applications till 2020-2026

Structural Composite Lumber (SCL) Market Growth, Industry Trends 2020 Size by Regions, Global Industry Share, Sales Revenue and Opportunities till 2026 with COVID-19 Impact

Go here to read the rest:
3D Cell Culture Market 2020 | Remarkable Growth Factors with Industry Size & Share, New Innovations of Leading Players & Forecast till 2024 -...

Synthetic Stem Cells Market size 2020 with High CAGR in Coming Years with Review by Business Opportunities, Top manufacturers Entry ,Developments,…

2020 Synthetic Stem Cells Market Region Coverage (Regional Production, Demand & Forecast by Countries etc.): North America, Europe Asia-Pacific, South America Middle East & Africa,LOS ANGELES, United States: Synthetic Stem Cells Market 2020 Detailed Analysis & SWOT analysis, Synthetic Stem Cells Manufacturing Equipment Market Trends 2020-2025, Synthetic Stem Cells Manufacturing Equipment Market Growth 2020, Synthetic Stem Cells Manufacturing Equipment Industry Share 2020, Synthetic Stem Cells Manufacturing Equipment Industry Size, Synthetic Stem Cells Manufacturing Equipment Market Research, Synthetic Stem Cells Manufacturing Equipment Market Analysis, Synthetic Stem Cells Manufacturing Equipment market Report speaks about the manufacturing process. The process is analyzed thoroughly with respect three points, viz. raw material and equipment suppliers, various manufacturing associated costs (material cost, labor cost, etc.) and the actual process of whole Enterprise Synthetic Stem Cells Manufacturing Equipment Market.

Medical CareGlobal Synthetic Stem Cells Industry Outlook Analysis 2020-2024 : Complete brief Synthetic Stem Cells market 2020 research report offers global Synthetic Stem Cells market outlook (2020-2024) analysis supported countries, Structure Analysis, Breakdown Data by Manufacturers, Upcoming Trends and more..

Global Synthetic Stem Cells Market analysis 2020 covers the entire supply chain, focusing on supply, demand, trade and prices by country and product. ;We also provide five-year forecasts for these same market fundamentals. The competitive force is likely to raise in the near future. ; Synthetic Stem Cells market is expected to keep experiencing a greater level of competition with a growing number of players focusing on securing a larger market share. It also discussions about the Marketof different segments and their growth aspects along with growth trends, various stakeholders like investors, CEOs, traders, suppliers, Research amp; media, Global Manager, Director, President, SWOT analysis i.e. Strength, Weakness, Opportunities and Threat to the organization and others.

Get a sample copy of the Synthetic Stem Cells market report 2020

Summary:

Synthetic stem cells offer therapeutic benefits comparable to those from natural stem cells and could reduce some of the risks associated with stem cell therapies. Additionally, these cells have better preservation stability and the technology is generalizable to other types of stem cells.,

Synthetic Stem Cells ;Market competition by Top Countries manufacturers/ Key player Data Profiled:

And More

The global Synthetic Stem Cells market is anticipated to rise at a considerable rate during the forecast period, between 2020 and 2024.

;

Get a Sample PDF of report @ https://www.360marketupdates.com/enquiry/request-sample/14222725

Synthetic Stem Cells Market Segment by Type covers:

Synthetic Stem Cells Market Segment by Applications can be divided into:

Scope of the Synthetic Stem Cells market ;Report:

Fill the Pre-Order Enquiry form for the report @ https:// http://www.360marketupdates.com /enquiry/pre-order-enquiry/14222725

;Regional analysis covers:

Key questions answered in the report:

Key Benefits

And More

The report provides an in-depth knowledge of the Global Synthetic Stem Cells market scenario:

Look into Table of Content of Synthetic Stem Cells Market Report https:// http://www.360marketupdates.com /TOC/14222725#TOC

The next part also sheds light on the gap between supply and consumption. Apart from the mentioned information, ;growth rate ;of Synthetic Stem Cells market in 2024 ;is also explained. ;Additionally, type wise and application wise consumption ;tables and ;figures ;of Synthetic Stem Cells market ;are also given.

Buy this report (Price USD 3480 for a single-user license)@ https:// http://www.360marketupdates.com /purchase/14222725

About 360 Market Updates: ;

360 Market Updates is the credible source for gaining the market research reports that will exponentially accelerate your business. We are among the leading report resellers in the business world committed towards optimizing your business. The reports we provide are based on a research that covers a magnitude of factors such as technological evolution, economic shifts and a detailed study of market segments.

CONTACT US

Mr. Ajay More

Phone: ;+14242530807 / + 44 20 3239 8187

Email: ;[emailprotected]

Read more here:
Synthetic Stem Cells Market size 2020 with High CAGR in Coming Years with Review by Business Opportunities, Top manufacturers Entry ,Developments,...

-Catenin safeguards the ground state of mousepluripotency by strengthening the robustness of the transcriptional apparatus – Science Advances

INTRODUCTION

Pluripotency can be sustained in vitro through culture in specific conditions. Mouse embryonic stem cells (ESCs) in conventional serum/leukemia inhibitory factor (LIF) (SL) medium are considered to exhibit nave, preimplantation-like pluripotency because they contribute to chimeras with relative high efficiency upon blastocyst complementation. Yet, only a proportion of ESCs in SL are truly nave at a given time, and the entire population is highly metastable, periodically switching between nave and early post-implantationlike (formative or partially primed) pluripotent states (1, 2). Culture in serum-free medium with mitogen-activated protein kinase kinase (MEK) and glycogen synthase kinase 3 (GSK3) inhibitors, PD0325901 (PD) and CHIR99021 (CHIR), produces a pluripotent ground state that more closely resembles the preimplantation inner cell mass (35). Addition of LIF to the 2i (2iL) facilitates pluripotency maintenance in the ground state but is not strictly necessary. ESCs in 2iL have lower expression of lineage-associated genes and more homogeneous expression of pluripotency genes than in SL (6, 7). They also display genome-wide DNA hypomethylation, reduced histone 3 lysine-27 trimethylation (H3K27me3) at promoters, and tolerate better the suppression of epigenetic/epitranscriptomic factors than ESCs in SL (6, 810). Overall, this suggests a rewiring of regulatory networks that confers additional robustness in 2iL, but the underlying mechanisms are unclear.

Gene transcription in eukaryotes has a highly regulated progression involving initiation, Pol2 pausing in the vicinity of the promoter, release of paused Pol2, gene body elongation, and termination (11). Recruitment of the Pol2 transcription initiation apparatus and Pol2 pause release are rate-limiting steps. Initiation is orchestrated by sequence-specific transcription factors (e.g., the pluripotency transcription factors), which, through chromatin remodeling, allow the recruitment of the basal transcription machinery including general transcription factors and Pol2. For many mammalian genes, Pol2 then pauses 20 to 60 nucleotides after the transcription start site (TSS), requiring pause release for subsequent productive gene body elongation. Pol2 pause release is mediated by CDK9, the catalytic subunit of the positive transcription elongation factor b (P-TEFb) complex. CDK9 resides in a catalytically inactive complex that is activated by different mechanisms; the bromodomain and extraterminal (BET) family member BRD4 plays a critical role in this process (12, 13). Pol2 pausing and the subsequent pause release represent a mechanism for ensuring potent but quick binary-switchable gene expression but, being a multistep process, could render gene transcription vulnerable to perturbation. Notably, both transcription initiation and Pol2 pause release are required for sustaining high expression levels of genes involved in pluripotency maintenance and proliferation/self-renewal of mouse ESCs in SL (12, 1416), but it was unclear whether transcriptional regulation in ground-state culture conditions has the same essential requirements.

Here, we show that -catenin potentiates the recruitment of coregulatorsincluding BRD4, CDK9, mediator, cohesin, and p300to strengthen pluripotency loci in ESCs in 2iL. This enhances transcription initiation at those loci, compensatorily lowering the dependence on Pol2 pause release for productive gene body elongation. By contrast, cell cyclerelated genes are not bound by -catenin and remain addicted to Pol2 pause release in 2iL, making self-renewal highly sensitive to BRD4/CDK9 suppression in both culture conditions. Our findings explain how pluripotency gene transcription is selectively reinforced in the ground state to protect against exogenous perturbation.

To investigate distinctive transcriptional features of mouse ESCs cultured in SL or 2iL, we performed a short hairpin RNA (shRNA) screen for a panel of transcriptional regulators (fig. S1A). This panel included regulators of Pol2 pause release, histone methyltransferases/demethylases, histone acetyltransferases/deacetylases, histone acetylation readers, and splicing regulators, many of which are known to be necessary for ESC maintenance in SL (table S1). The effect of the knockdown was determined by measuring the expression of the core pluripotency markers Oct4 (Pou5f1), Nanog, and Klf2 by reverse transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR). Suppressing most regulators had a stronger effect in reducing pluripotency genes in SL than 2iL (Fig. 1A). In particular, we noticed that knocking down two relevant mediators of Pol2 pause release, BRD4 and CDK9, was better tolerated in 2iL.

(A) Heat map showing the relative expression of Pou5f1, Nanog, and Klf2 in ESCs in SL or 2iL transduced with shRNA for the indicated genes. (B) RT-qPCR for the indicated genes in ESCs in SL or 2iL transduced with shRNA for Luciferase (shLuc) or two shRNAs for Brd4 (shBrd4#1 and shBrd4#2). Data are the mean values SEM with the indicated significance (P value was calculated using two-tailed unpaired Students t test, also for all subsequent experiments unless otherwise noted). n = 3. (C) Growth curve of ESCs in 2iL transduced with shLuc, shBrd4#1, or shBrd4#2 measured by cell counting in triplicate at passage 1 after transduction. n = 2. A representative experiment is shown. (D) Percentage of cells in different cell cycle phases in ESCs in 2iL transduced with shLuc, shBrd4#1, or shBrd4#2 measured by flow cytometry at passage 1 after transduction (mean values SEM, n = 3). (E) Phase contrast and alkaline phosphatase (AP) activity of ESCs in SL or 2iL treated with vehicle [dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO)] or JQ1 at the indicated doses. Scale bar, 50 m. (F) As in (E) but shows RT-qPCR result for the indicated genes (mean values SEM, n = 3). (G) RT-qPCR for the indicated genes in ESCs in 2iL treated with DMSO or JQ1 at the indicated doses (mean values SEM, n = 3). (H) As in (C) but ESCs were treated with DMSO or JQ1 at the indicated doses for passage 0 (P0) or passage 1 (P1). n = 2. A representative experiment is shown. (I) As in (D) but ESCs were treated with DMSO or JQ1 at the indicated doses (mean values SEM, n = 3). (J) Heat map showing the fold change of pluripotency genes and cell cycle genes measured by RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) in ESCs in SL or 2iL treated with DMSO or 100 nM JQ1. *P < 0.05,**P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001.

We first focused on BRD4 because we and others have reported that it is a master regulator of ESC pluripotency/self-renewal (in SL) and early embryonic development (12, 14, 15). Basal BRD4 expression tested by Western blotting was comparable in SL and 2iL (fig. S1B). We repeated the Brd4 knockdown in both conditions and confirmed that it was effective in reducing mRNA and protein expression (Fig. 1B and fig. S1C). In contrast to SL, ESC colonies in 2iL transduced with Brd4 shRNA remained domed and compact, as well as alkaline phosphatase (AP) positive, even after several passages as single cells (fig. S1, D and E). Likewise, pluripotency genes, measured by RT-qPCR, exhibited little change or up-regulation in 2iL compared to SL (Fig. 1B and fig. S1F), but we observed reduced proliferation in both conditions (albeit more obvious in SL) (Fig. 1C and fig. S1D). This was associated with a significant increase in the number of cells in the G0-G1 phase of the cell cycle (Fig. 1D). Analysis of chromatin immunoprecipitationsequencing (ChIP-seq) for BRD4 showed a similar widespread binding pattern in SL and 2iL (fig. S1, G and H). We then validated the differential effects of Brd4 knockdown in SL and 2iL using two additional ESC lines and two more batches of ESC-qualified serum from different vendors (fig. S2, A to E). These results demonstrated that BRD4 is less required for preserving pluripotency in 2iL than SL but remains necessary for self-renewal (i.e., robust proliferative expansion in vitro) under both conditions.

To further verify the differential sensitivity of pluripotency characteristics to BRD4 suppression in ESCs cultured in SL and 2iL, we used JQ1, a well-known BET inhibitor that binds to the two BRD4 bromodomains to prevent their interaction with acetylated histones (17). At lower doses (100 and 200 nM) for 60 hours, JQ1 notably affected colony morphology, AP activity, and pluripotency gene expression in SL but had little effect in 2iL (Fig. 1, E and F). ESCs in 2iL remained competent for teratoma and chimera formation with 100 nM JQ1 (fig. S3, A and B). However, at higher doses (500 nM and above), pluripotency characteristics were also notoriously affected in 2iL (Fig. 1, E and G), especially upon passage as single cells (fig. S3C). Likewise, JQ1 reduced proliferation in 2iL, although at lower doses, this only became prominent after passaging as single cells (Fig. 1H). This was paralleled by an increase in the percentage of cells in G0-G1 and in apoptosis (Fig. 1I and fig. S3D). RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) confirmed the differential effect of 100 nM JQ1 on pluripotency in SL and 2iL and also showed the down-regulation of cell cycle genes (Fig. 1J and table S2). We confirmed that low doses of JQ1 impair pluripotency in SL but not 2iL using two additional ESC lines and two batches of ESC-qualified serum (fig. S3, E to G).

The experiments with JQ1 suggested that a certain level of BRD4 is necessary for maintaining pluripotency in 2iL. To exclude the possibility that higher doses impair pluripotency characteristics in 2iL through off-target effects, we used an inducible Cre/LoxP system for knocking out Brd4 (fig. S4, A to D). Despite extensive testing, we only obtained heterozygous Brd4fl/ clones in 2iL, which proliferated less and differentiated when changed to SL culture conditions (fig. S4, E and F). We also noticed that, in contrast to wild-type clones, low doses of JQ1 could effectively reduce pluripotency gene expression in heterozygous Brd4 knockout ESCs in 2iL (fig. S4G). We concluded that pluripotency maintenance is more resistant to BRD4 suppression in ESCs in 2iL than in SL, but reducing BRD4 beyond a threshold also affects pluripotency in 2iL.

Pol2 pausing is mediated by pausing factors including DRB sensitivityinducing factor (DSIF) and negative elongation factor (NELF), whereas pause release is triggered through phosphorylation of Pol2 on serine-2 (Ser2P) by CDK9. A major role of BRD4 is to induce Pol2 pause release by activating CDK9 (13), a target that was also identified as less necessary for 2iL in our shRNA screen (see above Fig. 1A). Consistently, analysis of CDK9 ChIP-seq in SL showed notable overlap with BRD4 ChIP-seq in SL or 2iL (Fig. 2A). Likewise, a sizeable proportion of genes down-regulated by JQ1 in SL or 2iL were cobound by BRD4 and CDK9 (Fig. 2B), including many pluripotency (in SL) and cell cycle genes (in SL and 2iL) (Fig. 2, B and C, and fig. S5A). To confirm the differential CDK9 dependence in SL and 2iL, we repeated the knockdown experiments and also used a specific CDK9 inhibitor [LDC000067; (18)]. As with Brd4 knockdown, Cdk9 knockdown severely affected colony morphology, AP activity, and pluripotency gene expression in SL but had no obvious effect in 2iL (Fig. 2, D and E), and this persisted for several passages (fig. S5, B and C). Proliferation and the cell cycle were significantly affected by Cdk9 knockdown in 2iL too (Fig. 2, F and G), although to a lesser extent than in SL (Fig. 2D). These effects were validated using an additional ESC line (fig. S5, D and E). Similarly, 10 M LDC000067 impaired colony morphology, AP activity, and pluripotency gene expression in SL but not in 2iL (even after multiple passages as single cells), but a higher dose had severe consequences in both conditions (Fig. 2, H and I, and fig. S5, F and G). Likewise, LDC000067 reduced cell growth in SL and 2iL, impaired the cell cycle, and enhanced apoptosis significantly (Fig. 2, H and J to L). The consistent phenotypes of suppressing Brd4 and Cdk9 implied that reducing Pol2 pause release at pluripotency genes is better tolerated in 2iL than SL, suggesting a major change in transcriptional control in the two culture conditions.

(A) Venn diagrams showing the overlap between BRD4 bound sites in ESCs in SL or 2iL and CDK9 bound sites. (B) Venn diagrams showing the overlap between genes down-regulated by 100 nM JQ1 in ESCs in SL or 2iL and BRD4/CDK9 cobound genes. (C) Genome views for a BRD4/CDK9 cobound pluripotency gene (Nanog) and a cell cycle gene (Mdm4) in ESCs cultured as indicated. (D) Phase contrast and AP activity of ESCs in SL or 2iL transduced with shLuc or two shRNAs for Cdk9 (shCdk9#1 and shCdk9#2). Scale bar, 50 m. (E) As in (D) but shows RT-qPCR result for the indicated genes (mean values SEM, n = 5). (F) Growth curve of ESCs in 2iL transduced with shLuc, shCdk9#1, or shCdk9#2 measured by cell counting in triplicate at passage 1 after transduction. n = 2. A representative experiment is shown. (G) Percentage of cells in different cell cycle phases in ESCs in 2iL transduced with shLuc, shCdk9#1, or shCdk9#2 measured by flow cytometry at passage 1 after transduction (mean values SEM, n = 3). (H) Phase contrast and AP activity of ESCs in SL or 2iL treated with DMSO or LDC000067 (CDK9i) at the indicated doses. Scale bar, 50 m. (I) As in (H) but shows RT-qPCR result for the indicated genes (mean values SEM, n = 4). (J) As in (F) but ESCs were treated with DMSO or LDC000067. n = 2. A representative experiment is shown. (K) As in (G) but ESCs were treated with DMSO or LDC000067 (mean values SEM, n = 3). (L) Percentage of apoptotic cells in ESCs in 2iL treated with DMSO or LDC000067 (mean values SEM, n = 4). *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001.

BET inhibitors including JQ1 are a promising therapeutic avenue for cancer, but recent reports have described resistance to BET inhibitors through activation of Wnt/-catenin signaling (19, 20). In this pathway, Wnt ligands trigger stabilization and nuclear translocation of -catenin, which then binds to and transactivates T cell factor/lymphoid enhancer factor (TCF/LEF) transcription factors to switch on gene expression (21). We envisaged that -catenin could also confer resistance to BRD4 suppression in ESCs cultured in 2iL, as, similarly to Wnt ligands, CHIR stabilizes -catenin through GSK3 inhibition (3). Moreover, -catenin has been proposed to promote ground-state pluripotency by alleviating the repressor function of TCF3, which associates with pluripotency transcription factors at target loci (2123). Yet, the specific mechanisms are not well understood. Accordingly, Tcf3 or Gsk3 depletion allow expansion of ESCs in serum-free medium with PD alone (3, 21, 23), whereas -catenin is strictly required for expansion in 2iL medium without LIF (21, 22).

We first studied whether PD alone, CHIR alone, or the 2i added to ESCs in SL could rescue the negative effects of 100 nM JQ1 on colony morphology, AP activity, and pluripotency gene expression, which we tested using two ESC lines. PD alone had some rescue effect on Nanog expression but not on the other genes tested. CHIR was more effective in restoring pluripotency characteristics, but only the combined effect of PD and CHIR achieved a complete rescue (Fig. 3, A and B, and fig. S6A). As for cell proliferation, we observed that the moderate rescue effect of adding 2i to ESCs in SL treated with JQ1 was mostly mediated by PD (Fig. 3C).

(A) Phase contrast and AP activity of ESCs cultured in SL with PD, CHIR, or 2i and treated with DMSO or JQ1. Scale bar, 50 m. (B) As in (A) but shows RT-qPCR result for the indicated genes (mean values SEM, n = 3). P value was calculated using two-way ANOVA with Tukeys multiple comparison posttest. (C) Population doublings of ESCs in SL with PD, CHIR, or 2i, and treated with 500 nM JQ1 for 4 days relative to controls treated with DMSO (mean values SEM, n = 4). (D) Phase contrast and AP activity of wild-type (WT) and Gsk3 knockout (KO) ESCs in SL treated with DMSO or JQ1. Scale bar, 50 m. (E) As in (D) but shows RT-qPCR result for the indicated genes (mean values SEM, n = 3). P value was calculated using two-way ANOVA with Sadiks multiple comparison posttest, also for (H), (J), and (L). (F) Heat map showing the fold change of pluripotency (left) and cell cycle genes (right) measured in RNA-seq of wild-type or Gsk3 knockout ESCs in SL treated with DMSO or 100 nM JQ1. (G) Phase contrast and AP activity of wild-type and Tcf3 knockout ESCs in SL treated with DMSO or JQ1. Scale bar, 50 m. (H) As in (G) but shows RT-qPCR result for the indicated genes (mean values SEM, n = 3). (I) Phase contrast and AP activity of wild-type and S33Y -cateninoverexpressing ESCs in SL treated with DMSO or JQ1. Scale bar, 50 m. (J) As in (I) but shows RT-qPCR result for the indicated genes (mean values SEM, n = 3). (K) Phase contrast and AP activity of wild-type and Ctnnb1 knockout ESCs in 2iL treated with DMSO or 200 nM JQ1. Scale bar, 50 m. (L) As in (K) but shows RT-qPCR result for the indicated genes (mean values SEM, n = 3). *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001, ****P < 0.0001.

To systematically dissect the role of specific components of the Wnt/-catenin pathway, we treated wild-type ESCs in SL with WNT3A or used several knockout ESC lines lacking either Gsk3 (24), Ctnnb1 (encoding -catenin) (22), or Tcf3 (23). In addition, we used wild-type ESCs overexpressing a mutant form of -catenin (S33Y -catenin) resistant to GSK3-mediated degradation (25). The authentication of Gsk3 and Ctnnb1 knockout ESC lines, and ESCs overexpressing S33Y -catenin, was performed with a -catenin/TCF reporter (fig. S6B), whereas Tcf3 knockout cells were validated by PCR amplification and sequencing (fig. S6C). WNT3A treatment significantly reversed the effects of 100 nM JQ1 on pluripotency characteristics in SL, and Gsk3 knockout achieved a stronger rescue (Fig. 3, D and E, and fig. S6, D and E). The latter was also confirmed by RNA-seq (Fig. 3F and fig. S6F). The stronger effect of Gsk3 knockout compared to WNT3A and CHIR alone is possibly related to the extent and length of GSK3 suppression. Likewise, Tcf3 knockout and S33Y -catenin overexpression induced significant resistance to JQ1 in SL (Fig. 3, G to J). Moreover, Ctnnb1 knockout became sensitive to 200 nM JQ1 in 2iL, but the effect on pluripotency gene expression was not as strong as for wild-type ESCs in SL (Fig. 3, K and L). We also validated the resistance to the CDK9 inhibitor LDC000067 in Gsk3 or Tcf3 knockout ESCs (fig. S6, G and H). Therefore, GSK3 inhibition is the main mediator of the resistance of pluripotency genes to suppression of pause release in 2iL, of which -catenin stabilization is a major component.

To understand how -catenin mediates resistance to suppression of Pol2 pause release at pluripotency loci, we compared -catenin bound sites (table S3) in ChIP-seq (from a study using SL + CHIR) (26) with BRD4 bound sites in 2iL. There was a good genome-wide overlap (Fig. 4A), mostly at distal enhancers but also at promoters (fig. S7A), although the binding of BRD4 was more widespread. Moreover, we noticed that most -catenin/BRD4 cobound genes were not down-regulated by JQ1 in 2iL. We then named -catenin/BRD4 cobound genes that are down-regulated by JQ1 in SL but not 2iL as group 1 genes (Fig. 4B). By contrast, group 2 genes were defined as genes down-regulated by JQ1 in 2iL that are bound by BRD4 but not -catenin. Group 2 included many cell cycle genes, whereas group 1 included many pluripotency regulators (Fig. 4B and table S4). ChIP-qPCR confirmed enhanced -catenin binding at selected group 1 pluripotency loci in 2iL compared to SL, whereas at group 2 cell cyclerelated loci did not change (fig. S7B). ChIP-seq analysis also showed that TCF3 binds to a notable proportion of group 1 genes, whereas most of the group 2 genes were negative (fig. S7C and table S4). These findings suggested that -catenin promotes resistance to Pol2 pause release suppression through cobinding with BRD4/CDK9 at target loci, including pluripotency loci.

(A) Venn diagram showing the overlap between BRD4 bound sites in ESCs in 2iL and -catenin bound sites. (B) Venn diagram showing the overlap between BRD4 bound genes down-regulated by 100 nM JQ1 in ESCs in SL or 2iL and -catenin bound genes. (C) Occupancy plots for genome-wide nuclear run-on sequencing (GRO-seq) signal around the TSS of group 1 and 2 genes in ESCs in SL or 2iL. RPM, reads per million mapped reads. (D) Cumulative plots of GRO-seq signal along the proximal promoter and gene body of group 1 and 2 genes. RPKM, reads per kilobase per million mapped reads. (E) Violin plots showing the corresponding normalized read counts of GRO-seq at the proximal promoter or gene body for group 1 and 2 genes. P value was calculated using Wilcoxon rank sum test, also for all subsequent violin plots and boxplots. (F) As in (E) but shows the TR for group 1 and 2 genes. (G) Genome views from GRO-seq for a pluripotency gene (Nanog) and a cell cycle gene (Stat1) in ESCs in SL or 2iL. (H) ChIP-qPCR for Pol2 Ser5P at the proximal promoter of the indicated pluripotency and cell cycle genes in ESCs in SL or 2iL (mean values SEM, n = 4). (I) As in (H) but shows ChIP-qPCR for Pol2 Ser2P at the gene body (mean values SEM, n = 3). 1 and 2 represent gene body regions 1 and 2, respectively. (J) RT-qPCR for Nanog and Klf2 in ESCs cultured in SL or 2iL treated with 100 or 500 nM THZ1 for the indicated times (mean values SEM, n = 3). (K) RT-qPCR for Nanog and Esrrb in ESCs in 2iL treated with DMSO or 100 nM JQ1 (mean values SEM, n = 3). THZ1 (100 nM) was added for the indicated times before sample collection. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001.

Next, we sought to elucidate the molecular mechanism underlying the above observations. To rule out the possibility that -catenin compensates for the negative effect of JQ1 on pluripotency genes by enhancing mRNA stability in 2iL (27), we measured a panel of pluripotency mRNAs after actinomycin D treatment, which blocks transcription. Their stability was similar or lower in 2iL compared to SL (fig. S7D). This hinted to -catenin maximizing transcriptional flux at target genes in 2iL as a way to counteract a reduction in Pol2 pause release. So, we turned our attention to potential differences in transcriptional dynamics between ESCs cultured in SL and 2iL. In this regard, a recent Pol2 ChIP-seq study (6) showed a global increase of promoter-proximal signal in 2iL that was not matched in the gene body, concluding that Pol2 pausing is more prevalent in 2iL than in SL. This was attributed to low expression of c-MYC in ESCs in 2iL, as c-MYC induces Pol2 pause release via CDK9 (28). Our reanalysis of this dataset showed a strong increase of Pol2 signal at the proximal promoter in 2iL for both group 1 and group 2 genes (fig. S7, E to G), but this could represent either more Pol2 pausing or more transcriptional initiation. As opposed to Pol2 pausing, more transcriptional initiation implies more gene body elongation if the degree of pausing remains constant and, hence, often associates with increased gene expression. Consistent with the former possibility, the Pol2 signal along the gene body only increased moderately at both groups of genes in 2iL, especially at group 1 (fig. S7, E to G). To define the extent of pausing at these loci more accurately, we used the Pol2 traveling ratio (TR), which compares the ratio in the signal of the proximal promoter and the gene body (12, 28, 29). The TR of both group 1 and group 2 genes was higher in 2iL (fig. S7H), supporting the idea that there is indeed more Pol2 pausing in both groups of genes in 2iL. Yet, it is difficult to reconcile the resistance of group 1 genes to BRD4/CDK9 suppression in 2iL with an increased Pol2 pausing that, in principle, would reduce gene expression. In this regard, we noted several reports describing that, for being a static snapshot, Pol2 ChIP-seq signals cannot effectively distinguish pausing from transcription initiation, nor can they be a measure for effective transcription elongation (29, 30).

We then used genome-wide nuclear run-on sequencing (GRO-seq) (31), which labels nascent RNAs with the synthetic nucleoside 5-bromouridine 5-triphosphate (BrUTP) to accurately map the distribution of transcriptionally engaged Pol2 throughout the genome. Group 1 genes in 2iL displayed enhanced GRO-seq signal not only in the proximal promoter but also in the gene body compared to SL, and the TR did not change significantly (Fig. 4, C to G), together indicating more transcription initiation followed by productive elongation. By contrast, group 2 genes in 2iL showed little difference in the GRO-seq signals in the proximal promoter or the gene body compared to SL, and the TR also remained fairly unchanged (Fig. 4, C to G). The relative pausing level of group 2 genes was higher than that of group 1 genes (Fig. 4F), in agreement with previous reports showing that Pol2 pausing is prevalent at cell cyclerelated genes in both SL and 2iL (29, 32). We also performed ChIP-qPCR for both Pol2 phosphorylated in serine-5 (Ser5P) and Pol2 Ser2P. The former Pol2 modification is mediated by CDK7, a catalytic subunit of the transcription factor H (TFIIH) complex (11), and is considered representative of transcriptional initiation, whereas the latter marks elongating Pol2. Both Pol2 modifications showed a notably increased signal at the Nanog and Esrrb promoter and gene body in 2iL compared with SL (Fig. 4, H and I), but not at two selected cell cyclerelated loci. These results further support the conclusions of the GRO-seq experiment. The GRO-seq of Gsk3 knockout ESCs in SL also showed a pattern consistent with higher transcription initiation and increased gene body elongation at group 1 genes but not group 2 genes compared to the wild-type control (fig. S8, A to D).

We next asked whether the increased transcription initiation at group 1 genes in 2iL may directly contribute to their resistance to Pol2 pause release suppression. Supporting this possibility, higher Pol2 occupancy at the promoter-proximal pause site driven by more transcription initiation can result in greater productive elongation if the function of BRD4/CDK9 is not yet saturated (13). It has also been proposed that increased transcription initiation can nudge paused Pol2 out of the proximal promoter to resume gene body elongation at BRD4 bound genes insensitive to JQ1 (30, 33). To study the relative dependence of pluripotency genes on transcription initiation of ESCs in SL and 2iL, we used the CDK7 inhibitor THZ1 (34). Notably, THZ1 down-regulated pluripotency genes more significantly in 2iL than in SL (Fig. 4J). Moreover, a low dose of THZ1 synergized with 100 nM JQ1 to reduce the expression of pluripotency genes in 2iL (Fig. 4K), supporting the idea that increased initiation compensates for the reduction in pause release mediated by BRD4 inhibition. To study whether the link between Wnt/-catenin signaling, transcription initiation, and JQ1 resistance applies to other contexts, particularly cancer cells, we tested a widely used leukemia cell line, THP1. CHIR induced resistance of THP1 cells to JQ1 (fig. S8E) and also rendered them more sensitive to THZ1 (fig. S8F). Likewise, the combination of THZ1 and JQ1 was more effective than either of the two (fig. S8G). In summary, the recruitment of -catenin to BRD4 bound sites in 2iL changes the mode of transcriptional regulation at target loci including pluripotency loci, which then rely more on transcription initiation for gene body elongation in detriment to Pol2 pause release.

We searched -catenin protein interaction networks looking for partners whose recruitment or reinforcement at group 1 genes in 2iL could explain the above phenomena. In addition to chromatin remodeling complexes (35), we observed two modules corresponding to transcription initiation and elongation (Fig. 5, A and B). Among other -catenin interacting proteins in these modules, we noticed Pol2, TATA-binding proteinassociated factors (TAF5/6/7), cohesin components (SMC1A and SMC3), and, interestingly, BRD4 and CDK9 as well. Pol2 and TAFs are critical for transcription initiation (11), whereas cohesin regulates transcription by forming ring-like structures that allow enhancer-promoter looping (36). We also noticed previous reports describing the interaction of -catenin with mediator (37, 38) and p300 (39) in other cell contexts. Mediator was immediately interesting because it is a well-known partner of BRD4 that controls transcription initiation through both cross-talk with TFIIH and enhancer-promoter looping (40). Immunoprecipitation of -catenin followed by Western blotting confirmed the interaction with mediator (MED1 and MED12), cohesin (SMC1A), and BRD4 in ESCs in 2iL (Fig. 5C). Likewise, ChIP-seq analysis showed genome-wide colocalization of -catenin, MED1, SMC1A, and BRD4 in 2iL at many pluripotency genes belonging to group 1 (Fig. 5D and fig. S9, A and B).

(A) Gene Ontology (GO) analysis of -catenin protein-interactome data based on a previous report (35). GO terms associated with transcriptional regulation and ESC identity are shown (Benjamini-Hochberg corrected P value). (B) Functional network of -catenin interacting proteins related to transcriptional regulation based on STRING protein interaction database (60) as visualized by Cytoscape. -Catenin partners found in both STRING database and the above protein interactome data are highlighted in gray. SMC1A and SMC3 also interact with -catenin but belong to the GO term stem cell population maintenance. (C) Western blotting following immunoprecipitation (IP) of -catenin interacting proteins with nuclear extracts from ESCs in 2iL. Immunoglobulin (IgG) was used as negative control. (D) Genome views of ATAC-seq and H3K27ac, -catenin, MED1, SMC1A, BRD4, and p300 ChIP-seq at Nanog in ESCs cultured as indicated. (E) Occupancy plot (top) and boxplot (bottom) showing the normalized read counts for MED1 ChIP-seq signal in ESCs in SL or SL plus 2i (S2iL) around -catenin bound sites. (F) As in (E) but shows SMC1A ChIP-seq signal. (G) As in (E) but shows BRD4 ChIP-seq signal. (H) ChIP-qPCR for MED1 at -catenin bound sites of the indicated pluripotency genes and cell cycle genes in wild-type and Ctnnb1 knockout ESCs in 2iL (mean values SEM, n = 4). (I) As in (H) but ChIP-qPCR for SMC1A (mean values SEM, n = 5). (J) As in (H) but ChIP-qPCR for BRD4 (mean values SEM, n = 3). (K) RT-qPCR for the indicated genes in Ctnnb1 knockout ESCs in 2iL rescued by knock-in of a wild-type (clone 1) or C-terminal truncated (C) (clone 1) form of -catenin. ESCs were treated with DMSO or 100 nM JQ1 (mean values SEM, n = 3). P value was calculated using two-way ANOVA with Sadiks multiple comparison posttest. (L) As in (C) but uses nuclear extracts from Ctnnb1 knockout ESCs in 2iL rescued by knock-in of a wild-type (clone 1) or a C form (clone 1) of -catenin. Specific bands for IP are marked with red arrows. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01.

To see whether -catenin is actually promoting the recruitment of these coregulators at target loci, we compared ChIP-seq datasets for MED1, SMC1A, and BRD4 in 2iL and SL. We observed higher levels of the three coregulators at -catenin binding sites in 2iL (Fig. 5, E to G). BRD4 also showed increased signal outside -catenin binding sites but less remarkably, consistent with the idea that the 2i cause a global increase in BRD4 (41). In agreement, ChIP-qPCR for the same three coregulators at -catenin binding sites of pluripotency loci showed reduced levels in Ctnnb1 knockout ESCs in 2iL compared to the wild-type control (Fig. 5, H to J). However, binding of these coregulators at group 2 cell cyclerelated genes remained unchanged. A truncated -catenin form (lacking amino acids 727 to 781) without the C-terminal domain responsible for transcriptional activation of TCF/LEF factors (22) was still competent for inducing resistance to JQ1 in 2iL (Fig. 5K and fig. S9, C and D). This truncated -catenin also retained the ability to interact with coregulators in ESCs in 2iL (Fig. 5L). Overall, our findings support a model in which -catenin strengthens transcriptional flux at pluripotency loci by acting as a scaffold for recruiting coregulators rather than forming a canonical -catenindependent activation complex.

We also investigated chromatin features that could further contribute to maximizing transcriptional flux at group 1 genes in 2iL compared to SL. We focused on histone acetylation and DNA hypomethylation because these epigenetic marks associate with chromatin opening, transcription activation, and reduced Pol2 pausing (42, 43). H3K27 acetylation (H3K27ac) around -catenin binding sites was higher in 2iL than in SL (Figs. 5D and 6A), consistent with the recruitment of histone acetyltransferases (e.g., p300) by -catenin (39). Similarly, we observed an increase in H3K27ac in 2iL when comparing the 2-kb to +2-kb region around the TSS of group 1 genes. By contrast, H3K27ac did not increase at group 2 genes in 2iL compared to SL, and group 2 genes in 2iL had lower H3K27ac than group 1 genes (Fig. 6B). Consistent with the changes in H3K27ac, we noticed a clear increase in open chromatin with an assay for transposase-accessible chromatin sequencing (ATAC-seq) at -catenin binding sites in 2iL compared to SL and more moderately also at group 1 genes, whereas, at group 2 genes, it was slightly reduced in 2iL (Figs. 5D and 6, C and D). Notably, DNA methylation at -catenin binding sites was lower in 2iL than in SL (Fig. 6E). Yet, this effect extended to the entire locus of not only group 1 but also group 2 genes (Fig. 6F), indicating that it is not directly mediated by -catenin. The latter is in agreement with the existence of global DNA hypomethylation in 2iL, which is mostly driven passively through the suppression of UHRF1 protein stability induced by PD (44). In this regard, the limited number of sites actively demethylated by the ten-eleven translocation (TET) enzymes in the conversion of ESCs from SL to 2iL (44) included few -catenin binding sites (fig. S9E). Accordingly, Tet1/2 double and Tet1/2/3 triple knockout ESCs (45) did not show increased sensitivity of pluripotency genes to JQ1 in 2iL compared to the control (fig. S9, F to H). We concluded that permissive chromatin features, some of which are induced by -catenin, likely contribute to strengthening pluripotency gene transcription in 2iL by facilitating the assembly of multiprotein complexes (see schematic in Fig. 7).

(A) Occupancy plot (left) and boxplot (right) showing the normalized read counts for H3K27ac ChIP-seq signal in ESCs in SL or 2iL around -catenin bound sites. (B) Occupancy plot (left and middle) and boxplot (right) showing the normalized read counts for H3K27ac ChIP-seq in ESCs in SL or 2iL around the TSS of group 1 and 2 genes. (C) Occupancy plot (left) and boxplot (right) showing the normalized read counts for ATAC-seq signal in ESCs in SL or 2iL around -catenin bound sites. (D) Occupancy plot (left and middle) and boxplot (right) showing the normalized read counts for ATAC-seq signal in ESCs in SL or 2iL around the TSS of group 1 and 2 genes in ESCs in SL and 2iL. (E) Occupancy plot (left) and boxplot (right) showing the normalized read counts for DNA methylation in ESCs in SL or 2iL around -catenin bound sites. (F) Occupancy plot (left and middle) and boxplot (right) showing the normalized read counts for DNA methylation in ESCs in SL or 2iL around the TSS of group 1 and 2 genes.

(Top) Transcription of pluripotency genes in ESCs in SL requires transcription initiation mediated by recruitment of the Pol2 transcription initiation apparatus, which includes TFIIH, and subsequent pause release mediated by BRD4/CDK9. TCF3 associated with pluripotency transcription factors [including OCT4, SOX2, and NANOG (OSN)] acts as a repressor, presumably by interfering with the proper recruitment of coregulators. (Bottom) In 2iL, -catenin stabilized by GSK3 inhibition is recruited to pluripotency loci. -Catenin facilitates transcription initiation by supplying coregulators including mediator, cohesin, and BRD4, among others, at pluripotent loci. This effect possibly contributes to forming phase-separated condensates resistant to dissociation. The increase in transcription initiation reduces the need for Pol2 pause release mediated by BRD4/CDK9 for productive gene body elongation in 2iL. Higher H3K27ac and DNA hypomethylation renders chromatin genome-wide more accessible in 2iL, potentially facilitating both the recruitment of coregulators and gene body elongation to maximize transcriptional flux at pluripotency genes.

In addition to the recruitment of coregulators and the chromatin changes, other mechanisms may participate in inducing transcriptional resilience at pluripotency loci in 2iL. For example, alternative RNA splicing is a cotranscriptional event that can influence the speed with which Pol2 moves along the gene body (46), and it has also been shown that specific splicing regulators participate in Pol2 pause release (47). Likewise, Gsk3 knockout in ESCs in SL reduces the amount of alternative splicing due to impaired GSK3-mediated phosphorylation of splicing factors (48). We did not observe any notable difference in the number of alternatively spliced genes regulated by GSK3 between group 1 and group 2 genes (fig. S9I). Yet, we noticed that -catenin interacts with multiple splicing regulators including SRSF3 and TRA2B (fig. S9J) (35), both of which also appeared in our screen as differentially required in SL and 2iL (see above Fig. 1A). We validated that Srsf3 and Tra2b knockdown is better tolerated in 2iL compared to SL (fig. S9K). This observation suggests that -catenin helps stabilize splicing regulators at pluripotency genes to render ESCs more resistant to a splicing reduction in 2iL. Although a potential role in modifying the speed of gene body elongation would need to be investigated, these results support the model depicting -catenin as a scaffold that strengthens transcription at pluripotency loci in 2iL.

Mouse ESC pluripotency can be viewed as a continuum of hierarchical interconvertible states on the road to a somatic phenotype. The more nave or closer to inner cell mass characteristics, the more pluripotency is consolidated, but the underlying mechanisms are poorly understood. We have shown here that -catenin stabilized by CHIR selectively reinforces the pluripotency gene network in 2iL by potentiating the recruitment of BRD4, CDK9, mediator, cohesin, p300, and other transcriptional coregulators to pluripotency loci. This selectively heightens transcription initiation at pluripotency loci, enhancing gene body elongation in 2iL and making it morealbeit not completelyindependent of Pol2 pause release by BRD4/CDK9 than in SL. The enhanced transcriptional elongation in 2iL likely explains why expression of multiple pluripotency genes is higher than in SL and potentially also why there is less oscillation in gene expression (an underlying cause of metastability) (7). The removal of TCF3 from pluripotency loci causes a similar transcriptional consequence to -catenin stabilization, conceivably by allowing closer interactions between coregulators and the pluripotency transcription factors or by removing detrimental epigenetic activities [e.g., histone deacetylases (49)]. PD also contributes to inducing resistance to suppression of Pol2 pause release in 2iL possibly by inducing Nanog mRNA and stabilizing NANOG protein (50). The former effect might be caused by preventing extracellular signalregulated kinasemediated phosphorylation and dissociation of coregulators including MED24 from Pol2-containing complexes at the Nanog locus (51). As opposed to pluripotency genes, proliferation genes are not bound by -catenin and, thus, remain very sensitive to suppression of Pol2 pause release in 2iL.

In recent years, it has become evident that phase-separated biomolecular condensates compartmentalize biochemical reactions within cells, including transcription (52). This is caused by multivalent interactions between proteins, many of which have intrinsically disordered regions (IDRs) that confer the physicochemical properties of the condensate. In this regard, it was recently proposed that, thanks to its two disorganized domains at the N-terminal (amino acids 1 to 141) and C-terminal (amino acids 727 to 781) ends, -catenin is attracted to stable chromatin phase-separated condensates formed by mediator and BRD4 to execute its signaling role in ESCs in 2iL (53). Our findings suggest that -catenin might be a priming event for the stabilization of these condensates in ESCs in 2iL by enhancing the cooperative and multivalent interactions between coregulators at pluripotency loci (Fig. 7). This is consistent with our observation that the C-terminal domain of -catenin containing one of its IDRs is not necessary for the resiliance of ESCs in 2iL to JQ1 and the fact that -catenin IDRs are much shorter than those of BRD4 and MED1 (53, 54). The physicochemical forces created within these condensates and the interaction with -catenin could cause a remnant of BRD4, CDK9, and other coregulators to tend to localize to pluripotency loci despite genome-wide depletion induced by shRNAs or chemical inhibitors.

Finley et al. recently reported that BRD4 is dispensable for pluripotency and self-renewal in the ground state (41). A reduced rather than abolished requirement for BRD4 in the early embryo is perhaps easier to understand from a developmental point of view, as it is supported by the observation that Brd4 null mouse embryos cannot maintain the inner cell mass (15, 55). Finley et al. also proposed that a strengthened network of pluripotency transcription factors and the recruitment of TET enzymes partially contribute to the resistance to BRD4 suppression in 2iL. The former mechanism fits well with our observations, as transcription factors can recruit coregulators and enhance transcription initiation (11). Yet, we did not observe any evidence for TET involvement, which may be related to variations among ESC lines or in the culture conditions. Despite the differences, both studies are relevant and highlight the striking similarities in transcriptional adaptation upon network perturbation between ESCs in the ground state and cancer cells. Further mechanistic knowledge will mutually contribute to understand ground-state pluripotency and cancer cell resistance to drugs. For example, ESCs in 2iL may prove to be a useful model to identify either more effective anticancer drugs or synergistic combinations. In this regard, our findings with ESCs in 2iL suggest that treatment of BRD4-addicted cancers with a combination of JQ1 and inhibitors of transcription initiation might be a more robust and applicable anticancer therapy for a general patient base than JQ1 alone.

In the future, it will be important to study whether the molecular interface regulating the interaction between -catenin and transcriptional coregulators can be used to develop specialized anticancer drugs. It will also be interesting to test whether the principles presented here can yield optimized methods for sustaining ground-state pluripotency in vitro in a broad spectrum of mammals.

Human embryonic kidney293T (HEK293T) cells were purchased from the American Type Culture Collection and maintained in Dulbeccos modified Eagles medium (DMEM)/high glucose (Corning, 10-017-CVR) containing 10% fetal bovine serum (FBS; Biowest). THP1 cells were purchased from the Cell Bank of Type Culture Collection of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (Shanghai, China) and maintained in RPMI 1640 medium (Thermo Fisher Scientific, C11875500CP) supplemented with 10% FBS (Biowest), GlutaMAX (Gibco, 35050079), penicillin/streptomycin (Hyclone, SV30010), and -mercaptoethanol (Gibco, 2198503). ESCs in SL medium were cultured in DMEM/high glucose containing 15% FBS (Biological Industries; unless otherwise specified), GlutaMAX, penicillin/streptomycin, nonessential amino acids (Gibco, 11140050), sodium pyruvate (Corning, 25-000-CI), -mercaptoethanol, and LIF (1000 U/ml) on mitomycin-Ctreated mouse embryonic fibroblasts (as feeders); they were split onto 0.2% gelatin-precoated plates before each experiment. ESCs in 2iL medium were cultured in a 1:1 mix of DMEM/F12 (Hyclone, SH30023.01) and Neurobasal medium (Gibco, 21103049) with N2 (Gibco, 17502048) and B27 (Gibco, 17504044) supplements, GlutaMAX, penicillin/streptomycin, nonessential amino acids, sodium pyruvate, -mercaptoethanol, LIF (1000 U/ml), 3 M CHIR99021 (StemRD, CHIR-50), and 1 M PD0325901 (StemRD, PD-50) on 0.2% gelatin-precoated plates. SL and 2iL media were changed daily. ESCs cultured in SL medium were cryopreserved in CELLBANKER 2 (Amsbio, 11891). After cell thawing, the same vial was used for culture in SL or 2iL. For the latter, ESCs cultured in SL were adapted to 2iL for three passages before each experiment. ESCs in SL or 2iL were passaged as single cells using 0.05% trypsin (Gibco, 25300054) every 3 days. The other two types of serum for SL medium were purchased from Fisher Scientific and Biowest; both were tested for ESC maintenance beforehand in the Esteban laboratory. Other inhibitors including JQ1 (BPS Bioscience, 27402), LDC000067 (Selleck Chemicals LLC, S7461), THZ1 (MedChemExpress, HY-80013), and actinomycin D (Sigma-Aldrich, A1410) were dissolved in dimethyl sulfoxide and added into the medium at the indicated concentrations. JQ1 and LDC000067 were added for 60 hours unless otherwise specified. E14gt2a (E14) ESCs were provided by I. Samokhvalov (Guangzhou Institutes of Biomedicine and Health, Chinese Academy of Sciences, China); they were used for all experiments unless otherwise specified. 129 and OG2 ESCs were provided by J. Liu (Guangzhou Institutes of Biomedicine and Health, Chinese Academy of Sciences, China). Tcf3 knockout ESCs (23) were provided by B. Merrill (University of Illinois at Chicago, USA). Gsk3 knockout ESCs, S33Y -cateninoverexpressing ESCs, Ctnnb1 knockout ESCs, Ctnnb1 knockout ESCs rescued by either a wild-type or a C-terminal truncated form of -catenin, Tet1/2 double knockout ESCs, and Tet1/2/3 triple knockout ESCs were previously reported (21, 24, 25, 45) .

For shRNA experiments, ESCs cultured in SL or 2iL medium were infected with lentiviruses generated from HEK293T cells. Samples were extracted 96 hours after infection unless otherwise specified. shRNA inserts were cloned into pLKO.1 lentiviral vectors. All shRNA target sequences and RT-qPCR primers are listed in table S5. RNA samples were isolated using TRIzol reagent (Thermo Fisher Scientific, 15596026). RT-qPCR was performed using the SYBR Premix ExTaq Kit (Takara, RR420A) with an ABI 7500 real-time PCR machine. Data were analyzed in triplicate and normalized on the basis of Actb values. RNA-seq was performed by RiboBio Co. Ltd., China.

Animal experiments were compliant with all relevant ethical regulations regarding animal research and were conducted under the approval of the Animal Care and Use Committee of the Guangzhou Institutes of Biomedicine and Health under license number 2016012. For teratomas, ESCs were trypsinized, and 2 106 cells were injected into the flanks of immunocompromised nude mice. Mice were euthanized when the tumor diameter reached 1.5 cm, and the teratomas were processed for histological analysis. Chimeras were produced by injecting ESCs into blastocysts followed by implantation into a pseudopregnant C57BL/6J mice.

For proliferation assays, 60,000 ESCs were seeded, unless otherwise specified, per well of a six-well plate (three wells per time point). ESCs were counted at the indicated time points with a Bright-Line hemacytometer (Marienfeld). Cell cycle experiments were performed with propidium iodide staining (Beyotime, C1052) followed by flow cytometry analysis. Apoptosis experiments were performed with the Annexin VFITC (fluorescein isothiocyanate) Apoptosis Detection Kit (Vazyme Biotech, A211) followed by flow cytometry analysis. Flow cytometry data were analyzed with FlowJo (v10.4) software. AP activity was detected with the BCIP-NBT Alkaline Phosphatase Color Development Kit (Roche, 11681451001).

Plasmid construction. Dual single guide RNAs (sgRNAs) were designed to target upstream and downstream intron of exon 5, respectively. Two sets of sgRNAs were designed, and the more efficient set was used for the experiments. sgRNAs were cloned into pX330-U6-Chimeric_BB-CBh-hSpCas9 (Addgene, 42230). PKD-EF1-CreER with a puromycin resistance gene was obtained by subcloning pCAG-CreERT2 (Addgene, 14797) into a PKD-EF1 lentiviral backbone plasmid. The left and right homologous arms of the mouse genome and a fragment containing LoxP-exon5-FRT-PGK-Neo-FRT-LoxP were cloned into pMD-19 T donor plasmid (Takara, 6013).

Generation of Brd4fl/fl clones. ESCs cultured in 2iL medium were transduced with the donor and PX330-CAS9-sgRNA plasmids using Lipofectamine 3000 (Invitrogen, L3000015). G418 (Merk, 108321-42-2) was added 24 hours after transduction for selection. After selection, the remaining cells were seeded into a 96-well plate for genotyping. To obtain Brd4fl/fl clones, the remaining cells were again transfected with pCAG-FlpeGFP plasmid (Addgene, 13788) and the green fluorescent protein (GFP)positive cells were sorted out to remove the selective marker Neo that was already integrated. Cells were then transduced with the donor and PX330-CAS9-sgRNA plasmids for a second round. After selection with G418, all the remaining cells were seeded again into a 96-well plate for genotyping. For Brd4fl/fl clones, the left-LoxP-exon5containing fragment and right-LoxPcontaining fragment were amplified for Sanger sequencing to make sure that the sequence and position of the LoxPs and exon 5 were correctly modified.

Generation of Brd4 fl/ and Brd4/ clones. Brd4fl/fl clones were transduced with the PKD-EF1-CreER plasmid and selected with puromycin (InvivoGen, ant-pr-1) for 2 days. The expression level of CreER was tested by RT-qPCR. Cells were seeded into a 96-well plate, and 4-hydroxytamoxifen was added to induce deletion of the floxed alleles. Genotyping was performed to obtain Brd4 fl/ and Brd4/ clones. Brd4 fl/ clones were transduced with pCAG-CreGFP plasmid (Addgene, 13776), and GFP-positive cells were sorted 72 hours later. The sorted GFP-positive cells were seeded into a 96-well plate for genotyping to get Brd4/ clones. All primers are listed in table S5.

Ten million cells were cross-linked in freshly prepared formaldehyde solution (1% final concentration for 10 min at room temperature) and then quenched with 125 mM glycine (for 5 min at room temperature). Fixed cells were washed with cold phosphate-buffered saline (PBS), harvested, flash-frozen in liquid nitrogen, and stored at 80C for further use. For -catenin, Pol2 Ser5P, and Pol2 Ser2P ChIP-qPCR, immunoprecipitation was performed as reported by Ward et al. (56). For MED1, SMC1A, and BRD4 ChIP-qPCR, immunoprecipitation was performed as reported by Finley et al. (41). After elution of antibody-bound complexes from the beads, cross-linking was reversed by overnight incubation at 65C. Samples were diluted in TE (Tris-EDTA) buffer and then treated with ribonuclease A (Sigma-Aldrich, R6513) for 1 hour at 37C, followed by incubation with proteinase K (Thermo Fisher Scientific, 25530049) for 2 hours at 55C. DNA was purified using the QIAquick PCR Purification Kit (Qiagen, 28106). Antibodies used for ChIP-qPCR were immunoglobulin G (Abcam, ab172730), anti-catenin (Abcam, ab32572), antiPol2 Ser5P (Abcam, ab5131), antiPol2 Ser2P (Abcam, ab5095), anti-MED1 (Bethyl, A300-793), anti-SMC1A (Bethyl, A300-055), and anti-BRD4 (Bethyl, A301-985A). Primers for ChIP-qPCR are listed in table S5.

GRO-seq was performed as previously described (57). Briefly, nuclei from 107 ESCs were extracted and run-on-transcribed with BrUTP (Sigma-Aldrich, B7166) and other nucleoside 5-triphosphates at 30C for 5 min. Nascent RNA was enriched by agarose-coated anti-BrUTP (Santa Cruz Biotechnology, sc-32323). Poly(A) tail was added to the nascent RNA by poly(A) polymerase (New England Biolabs, M0276S) to synthesize complementary DNA with oligo(dT) primers. GRO-seq libraries were amplified by PCR for 10 cycles and separated with 10% tris-borate EDTA polyacrylamide gels. Bands ranging from 160 to 300 base pairs (bp) were cut and purified by isopropanol precipitation. Sequencing of GRO-seq libraries was performed by Berry Genomics Co. Ltd., China.

Cells (107) were lysed in 250 l of TNE lysis buffer [50 mM tris-HCl (pH 7.5), 250 mM NaCl, 0.5% NP-40, and 1 mM EDTA] containing protease inhibitor cocktail (Roche, 04693132001) on ice for 15 min. Lysates were homogenized by a 0.4-mm syringe needle and centrifuged at 13,000g for 15 min at 4C. Supernatants were diluted with TNEG buffer [50 mM tris-HCl (pH 7.5), 50 mM NaCl, 0.5% NP-40, 20% glycerol, and 1 mM EDTA] and then incubated with the relevant antibodies overnight at 4C. The next day, 30 l of prewashed Protein A/Gconjugated beads (Thermo Fisher Scientific, 10001D and 10003D) was added and incubated for 3 hours at 4C. Beads were then washed three times with wash buffer 1 [20 mM tris-HCl (pH 7.4), 125 mM NaCl, and 0.1% NP-40] and two times with wash buffer 2 (1 PBS with 0.02% NP-40) for 5 min under rotation at 4C (for each wash). Last, the proteins were eluted with 60 l of SDS loading buffer and boiled for Western blotting. The following primary antibodies were used for immunoprecipitation or Western blotting: anti-BRD4 (Bethyl, A301-985A), anti-tubulin (Sigma-Aldrich, T5201), anti-catenin (Abcam, ab32572), anti-MED1 (Bethyl, A300-793), anti-MED12 (Bethyl, A300-774A), and anti-SMC1A (Bethyl, A300-055).

Cells (50,000) were washed once with cold PBS and resuspended in 50 l of lysis buffer [10 mM tris-HCl (pH 7.4) 10 mM NaCl, 3 mM MgCl2, and 0.1% (v/v) IGEPAL CA-630]. The suspension was then centrifuged at 500g for 10 min at 4C, followed by addition of 50 l of transposition reaction mix of the TruePrep DNA Library Prep Kit (Vazyme Biotech, TD502). Samples were then incubated at 37C for 30 min. Transposition reactions were cleaned up using the MinElute PCR Purification Kit (Qiagen, 28004). ATAC-seq libraries were subjected to five cycles for preamplification and amplified by PCR for an appropriate number of cycles. The amplified libraries were purified using the QIAquick PCR Purification Kit (Qiagen, 28104). Library concentration was measured using the VAHTSTM Library Quantification Kit (Vazyme Biotech, NQ101). Libraries were sequenced by Berry Genomics Co. Ltd., China.

For RNA-seq gene expression quantification, data were first aligned with STAR (v2.5.2) and quantified according to GENCODE vM15 in an RSEM-based pipeline (58). Differentially expressed genes were determined by DESeq2 (v1.18.1) and were defined as absolute fold change of >2 and q value of <0.1. Functional annotation was further performed by ClusterProfiler (v3.6.0) (59). For ChIP-seq and ATAC-seq, data were first aligned to the mm10 mouse genome assembly using Bowtie2 (v2.2.5) with the settings --very-sensitive. Low-quality mapped reads were removed using Samtools with the settings -q 30. Duplicated reads were collapsed using Picard (v1.9.0). For ChIP-seq, binding sites were called using MACS2 (v2.1.0) with the settings --keep-dup 1 -q 0.01. Peaks were annotated to all genes within 2 kb and the single closest gene within 20 kb, and duplicate genes were removed. Peaks were considered as overlapping if they intersect with each other. For GRO-seq, adaptors were first trimmed with fastp (v0.20.0), and only read 1 was kept for further analysis. PCR duplicates were collapsed using FASTX-Toolkit. A 20-bp polyA sequence and an 8-bp random sequence were trimmed from 3 end. Clean data were then aligned to the mm10 mouse genome assembly using Bowtie2. For quantification of Pol2 ChIP-seq and GRO-seq signals, the proximal promoter was considered as the 100- to +300-bp region around the annotated TSS, and the gene body was considered as the +300-bp to +2-kb region downstream of the annotated TSS. Reads were first normalized as reads per million mapped reads or reads per kilobase per million mapped reads using deepTools (v 3.3.1) and further assigned to the corresponding regions, while the top 1% of the values were trimmed. For whole-genome bisulfite sequencing analysis, data were aligned to the mm10 mouse genome assembly using BSMAP with the settings -v 0.1 -g 1 -p 8 -R -u and further assigned to corresponding regions. Occupancy plots were generated by deepTools. Cumulative plots, violin plots, and boxplots were generated by ggplot2 (v2.2.1); the black central line of boxplots is the median, the boxes indicate the upper and lower quartiles, and the whiskers indicate the 1.5 interquartile range.

ESCs were seeded 12 hours before transfection on gelatin-precoated 24-well plates at a density of 30,000 cells per well. TOPflash or FOPflash report plasmids (Millipore, 17-285) and Renilla luciferase plasmids were transduced using Lipofectamine 3000. Twenty-four hours after transfection, luciferase activity was measured using a Dual-Luciferase Reporter Assay System (Promega, E1910).

CCK-8 Cell Counting Kit (Vazyme Biotech, A311-02) was used to evaluate the cell viability of THP1 cells. THP1 cells (8,000 per well) were seeded in a 96-well plate. For measurements, 10 l of CCK-8 solution was added to each well, and the plates were incubated for 1 to 4 hours at 37C before the absorbance was measured at 450 nm using an Epoch 2 microplate spectrophotometer from BioTek.

Data of bar charts are represented as mean SEM. The P value was calculated using the unpaired two-tailed Students t test or two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). The number of replicates for each experiment is indicated in the figure legends. For violin plots and boxplots, the P value was calculated using Wilcoxon rank sum test.

Acknowledgments: We thank all members of the Esteban laboratory for their comments. We also thank M. Oren (Weizmann Institute of Science, Israel) for technical advice and J. T. Lis (Cornell University, USA) and X. Fu (University of California, USA) for helpful comments on this manuscript. We also thank the technical support from the Guangzhou Branch of the Supercomputing Center of Chinese Academy of Science and the Experimental Animal Center of Guangzhou Institutes of Biomedicine and Health, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Funding: This work was supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (2016YFA0100102, 2016YFA0100701, 2016YFA0100300, and 2018YFA0106903), the Strategic Priority Research Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (XDA16030502), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (31671537, 31571524, 31501192, 31430049, 31850410463, 31970619, 31950410553, and 31900617), the Guangdong Province Science and Technology Program (2014A030312001, 2015A030308007, 2016B030229007, 2016A050503037, and 2017B050506007), the Guangzhou Science and Technology Program (201807010066), the Innovative Team Program of Guangzhou Regenerative Medicine and Health Guangdong Laboratory (2018GZR110103001), and the Science and Technology Planning Project of Guangdong Province, China (2017B030314056). J.H.H. was funded by Pascal and Ilana Mantoux, Helen and Martin Kimmel Institute for Stem Cell Research, Flight Attendant Medical Research Council (FAMRI), European Research Council (ERC-CoG), and an Israel-China Israel Science Foundation (ISF) grant. C.W. was supported by a Zhujiang Overseas Young Talents Postdoctoral Fellowship. S.K. was supported by a Chinese Academy of Sciences Presidents International Fellowship. M.M.A., D.P.I., and M.T. were supported by the Chinese Academy of SciencesThird World Academy of Sciences (TWAS) Presidents PhD Fellowship. A.S. was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (REBIRTH and SFB738). Author contributions: M.A.E., M.Z., and Y. Lai conceived the idea and designed the experiments. M.Z. conducted most of the experiments and Y. Lai performed most of the bioinformatics study. M.A.E., M.Z., and Y. Lai analyzed the data. V.K. and L.C. contributed critically to the experiments. P.G., X.G., Jianguo Zhou, Y.X., Z.Y., L.L., A.J., W.L., M.M.A., G.M., N.L., X.F., Y. Lv., M.J., M.T., S.K., H.L., X.X., H.Z., Y.H., L.W., S.C., I.A.B., Z.L., D.W., T.Z., C.W., M.H., D.P.I., Y. Li, Jiajian Zhou, J.Y., Y.F., K.A., U.D.V., F.G., A.P.H., and G.V. contributed to the experiments and/or the analyses. X.B., G.W., A.S., H.W., H.S., B.Q., A.P.H., B.W.D., C.H., M.P.C., Y.Q., G.-L.X., R.C., and G.V. provided relevant advice, essential materials, and/or infrastructural support. M.A.E. supervised the study and provided most of the financial support. J.H.H. contributed to the supervision and also provided financial support. M.A.E. wrote the manuscript with help from M.Z. and Y. Lai. M.A.E. approved the final version of the manuscript. Competing interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Data and materials availability: All data needed to evaluate the conclusions in the paper are present in the paper and/or the Supplementary Materials. Additional data related to this paper may be requested from the authors. RNA-seq, GRO-seq, and ATAC-seq data have been deposited in the Gene Expression Omnibus database under the accession number GSE123692. Published datasets used in this study are listed in table S6.

Read this article:
-Catenin safeguards the ground state of mousepluripotency by strengthening the robustness of the transcriptional apparatus - Science Advances

Ozzy Osbourne Recovering from Recent Health Issues and Working on New Album – mxdwn.com

Ariel King July 18th, 2020 - 8:30 PM

Ozzy Osbourne is currently recovering from recent health issues related to Parkinsons, according to his wife, Sharon Osbourne. Ozzy Osbourne is also currently working on a new album.Sharon Osbourne made the comment in an interview on Steve-Os Wild Ride! Sharon Osbourne remarked on Osbournes upcoming album.

Hes starting his second album with Andrew Watt right now, Sharon Osbourne said. And you cant stop him. Hes doing it.

Ozzy Osbournes last album, Ordinary Man, had been released last February, with Andrew Watt producing the album. Ordinary Man had been Osbournes first solo album in ten years. The singer first announced plans to begin working on a new album only a few days after the release of Ordinary Man.

Hes doing really, really good, Sharon Osbourne said. Hes had a terrible, terrible injury. At one point, they thought he would never walk again, but he is hes walking and hes doing great. Hes been hit by so much medically, but hes doing good. Hes getting stronger every day.

Ozzy Osbourne had suffered a fall in 2019, while he had a year left until the completion of his farewell tour. The fall resulted in a spinal injury which resulted in surgery, with Sharon Osbourne saying it sparked off Ozzy Osbournes Parkinsons disease.

Osbourne revealed he had been diagnosed with Parkinsons at the beginning of this year, the singer undergoing stem cell treatments to mitigate the symptoms. His daughter, Kelly Osbourne, revealed in April that the treatment had been working with remarkable results. Shortly after being diagnosed, Ozzy Osbourne had cancelled his last tour, the singer hoping to resume dates prior to the pandemic.

See original here:
Ozzy Osbourne Recovering from Recent Health Issues and Working on New Album - mxdwn.com

What the research says about Covid-19 treatments – ETHealthworld.com

NEW DELHI: There is no cure yet for Covid-19. Doctors and scientists are scrambling to find treatments and drugs that can save the lives of infected people and perhaps prevent infection. Even the most promising treatments to date only help certain groups of patients, and await validation from further trials. Here are 16 major treatments assessed by The New York Times, and what the latest research says about them.

BLOCKING THE VIRUS Antiviral drugs can stop viruses such as HIV and hepatitis C from hijacking our cells. Scientists are searching for antivirals that work against the new coronavirus. Remdesivir (Promising evidence) It stops viruses from replicating by inserting itself into new viral genes. While it didnt fulfill its original purpose of fighting Ebola and hepatitis C, preliminary data suggests it can reduce hospital stay in severe cases from 15 to 11 days. The latest data also hints that it might reduce death rates among those who are very ill.

77027170

Favipiravir (Tentative or mixed evidence) Favipiravir is a flu drug that blocks a viruss ability to copy its genetic material. A small study in March indicated that it might clear out the coronavirus from the airway, but results from larger, well-designed clinical trials are still pending.

EIDD-2801 (Tentative or mixed evidence) Another antiviral originally designed to fight the flu, EIDD-2801 has had promising results against the new coronavirus in studies in cells and on animals. It is still being tested in humans. Recombinant ACE-2 (Tentative or mixed evidence) The coronavirus enters a cell by latching on to a human protein called ACE-2. Recombinant (artificial) ACE-2 proteins might be able to lure it away from vulnerable cells. They have shown promising results in experiments on cells, but not yet in animals or people. Lopinavir-Ritonavir (Not promising) At first, this combination of HIV drugs seemed to stop the new coronavirus from replicating, but clinical trials in patients proved disappointing and the WHO suspended them this month. However, the drugs might still play a role as a preventive and in treating patients with mild symptoms. Hydroxychloroquine and Chloroquine (Not promising) At the start of the pandemic, researchers found that these old anti- malaria drugs could stop the coronavirus from replicating in cells. A few small studies on patients also offered hope that hydroxychloroquine could treat Covid. However, data from randomised clinical trials shows hydroxychloroquine didnt help people with Covid-19 get better or prevent healthy people from contracting the coronavirus. Also, giving hydroxychloroquine to people right after being diagnosed didnt reduce the severity of their disease. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) now warns that the drug can cause serious side effects to the heart and other organs when used to treat Covid-19. MIMICKING THE IMMUNE SYSTEM Most patients fight off the virus with a strong immune response. Drugs might help people who cant mount an adequate defense

Convalescant Plasma (Tentative or mixed evidence) A century ago, doctors used plasma from the blood of recovered flu patients to treat people sick with flu. The same strategy has been tried on severely ill Covid patients and the early results are promising. The FDA has authorised plasma therapy for very sick Covid patients.

Monoclonal antibodies (Tentative or mixed evidence) Convalescent plasma contains a mix of antibodies, only some of which can fight the coronavirus. Researchers have identified the most potent Covid antibodies and their synthetic copies known as monoclonal antibodies can be manufactured in bulk and injected into patients. Safety trials for this treatment have only just begun.

Interferons (Tentative or mixed evidence) Interferons are molecules that our cells produce to make the immune system attack viruses. Injecting synthetic interferons is now a standard treatment for immune disorders. Experiments in mice and cells suggest that interferon injections could be used both as a preventive and a treatment for Covid-19.

PUTTING OUT FRIENDLY FIRE The most severe symptoms of Covid-19 are the result of the immune systems overreaction to the virus. Scientists are testing drugs that can rein in its attack

Dexamethasone (Promising evidence) This cheap and widely available steroid blunts many types of im- mune responses. Doctors have long used it to treat allergies, asthma and inflammation. A study of more than 6,000 people found that dexametha- sone reduced deaths by one-third in patients on ventilators, and by one- fifth in patients on oxygen.

Cytokine inhibitors(Tentative or mixed evidence) The body produces molecules called cytokines to fight off diseases. But in excess, they can trigger a cy- tokine storm, which causes the immune system to overreact to in- fections. Researchers have created several drugs to halt cytokine storms, including tocilizumab, sari- lumab and anakinra. While a few have offered modest help in some trials, others have faltered. The drug company Regeneron recently announced that a branded version of sarilumab, Kevzara, failed Phase 3 clinical trials.

Cytosorb (Tentative or mixed evidence) Cytosorb is a cartridge that filters cytokines from the blood in an at tempt to cool cytokine storms. The machine can purify a patients entire blood supply about 70 times in a 24-hour period.

Stem cells (Tentative or mixed evidence) Certain kinds of stem cells can secrete anti-inflammatory molecules. Researchers have tried to use them to treat cytokine storms, and now dozens of clinical trials are under way to see if they can help Covid-19 patients. But stem cell treatments havent worked well in the past, and its not clear yet if theyll work against the coronavirus.

OTHER TREATMENTS Doctors and nurses often administer other supportive treatments to help patients with Covid-19.

Prone positioning (Widely used) The simple act of flipping Covid-19 patients onto their bellies opens up the lungs. The manoeuvre might help some individuals avoid the need for ventilators entirely.

Ventilators (Widely used) Devices that help people breathe are an essential tool. Some patients do well if they get an extra supply of oxygen through the nose or via a mask connected to an oxygen ma- chine. Patients in severe respira- tory distress may need to have a ventilator breathe for them until their lungs heal.

Anticoagulants (Tentative or mixed evidence) The coronavirus can invade cells in the lining of blood vessels, leading to tiny clots that can cause strokes. Anticoagulants are commonly used to slow the formation of clots, and doctors sometimes use them on Covid-19 patients with clots.

Original post:
What the research says about Covid-19 treatments - ETHealthworld.com