SUMMARY: Background Mutation of the growth factor-independent 1B (GFI1B) fifth DNA-binding zinc-finger domain causes macrothrombocytopenia and α-granule deficiency leading to clinical bleeding. The phenotypes associated with GFI1B variants disrupting non-DNA-binding zinc-fingers remain uncharacterized. Objectives To determine the functional and phenotypic consequences of GFI1B variants disrupting non-DNA-binding zinc-finger domains. Methods The GFI1B C168F variant and a novel GFI1B c.2520 + 1_2520 + 8delGTGGGCAC splice variant were identified in four unrelated families. Phenotypic features, DNA-binding properties and transcriptional effects were determined and compared with those in individuals with a GFI1B H294 fs mutation of the fifth DNA-binding zinc-finger. Patient-specific induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC)-derived megakaryocytes were generated to facilitate disease modeling. Results The DNA-binding GFI1B variant C168F, which is predicted to disrupt the first non-DNA-binding zinc-finger domain, is associated with macrothrombocytopenia without α-granule deficiency or bleeding symptoms. A GFI1B splice variant, c.2520 + 1_2520 + 8delGTGGGCAC, which generates a short GFI1B isoform that lacks non-DNA-binding zinc-fingers 1 and 2, is associated with increased platelet CD34 expression only, without quantitative or morphologic platelet abnormalities. GFI1B represses the CD34 promoter, and this repression is attenuated by different GFI1B zinc-finger mutations, suggesting that deregulation of CD34 expression occurs at a direct transcriptional level. Patient-specific iPSC-derived megakaryocytes phenocopy these observations. Conclusions Disruption of GFI1B non-DNA-binding zinc-finger 1 is associated with mild to moderate thrombocytopenia without α-granule deficiency or bleeding symptomatology, indicating that the site of GFI1B mutation has important phenotypic implications. Platelet CD34 expression appears to be a common feature of perturbed GFI1B function, and may have diagnostic utility.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and safety of autologous cells derived from different sources, prepared using different protocols, administered at different doses, and delivered via different routes for the treatment of 'no-option' CLI patients.
SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist (CIS) searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED), and trials registries (16 May 2018). Review authors searched PubMed until February 2017.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving 'no-option' CLI patients comparing a particular source or regimen of autologous cell-based therapy against another source or regimen of autologous cell-based therapy.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently assessed the eligibility and methodological quality of the trials. We extracted outcome data from each trial and pooled them for meta-analysis. We calculated effect estimates using a risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI), or a mean difference (MD) with 95% CI.
MAIN RESULTS: We included seven RCTs with a total of 359 participants. These studies compared bone marrow-mononuclear cells (BM-MNCs) versus mobilised peripheral blood stem cells (mPBSCs), BM-MNCs versus bone marrow-mesenchymal stem cells (BM-MSCs), high cell dose versus low cell dose, and intramuscular (IM) versus intra-arterial (IA) routes of cell implantation. We identified no other comparisons in these studies. We considered most studies to be at low risk of bias in random sequence generation, incomplete outcome data, and selective outcome reporting; at high risk of bias in blinding of patients and personnel; and at unclear risk of bias in allocation concealment and blinding of outcome assessors. The quality of evidence was most often low to very low, with risk of bias, imprecision, and indirectness of outcomes the major downgrading factors.Three RCTs (100 participants) reported a total of nine deaths during the study follow-up period. These studies did not report deaths according to treatment group.Results show no clear difference in amputation rates between IM and IA routes (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.18; three RCTs, 95 participants; low-quality evidence). Single-study data show no clear difference in amputation rates between BM-MNC- and mPBSC-treated groups (RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.45 to 5.24; 150 participants; low-quality evidence) and between high and low cell dose (RR 3.21, 95% CI 0.87 to 11.90; 16 participants; very low-quality evidence). The study comparing BM-MNCs versus BM-MSCs reported no amputations.Single-study data with low-quality evidence show similar numbers of participants with healing ulcers between BM-MNCs and mPBSCs (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.83; 49 participants) and between IM and IA routes (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.76; 41 participants). In contrast, more participants appeared to have healing ulcers in the BM-MSC group than in the BM-MNC group (RR 2.00, 95% CI 1.02 to 3.92; one RCT, 22 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Researchers comparing high versus low cell doses did not report ulcer healing.Single-study data show similar numbers of participants with reduction in rest pain between BM-MNCs and mPBSCs (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.06; 104 participants; moderate-quality evidence) and between IM and IA routes (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.64; 32 participants; low-quality evidence). One study reported no clear difference in rest pain scores between BM-MNC and BM-MSC (MD 0.00, 95% CI -0.61 to 0.61; 37 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Trials comparing high versus low cell doses did not report rest pain.Single-study data show no clear difference in the number of participants with increased ankle-brachial index (ABI; increase of > 0.1 from pretreatment), between BM-MNCs and mPBSCs (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.40; 104 participants; moderate-quality evidence), and between IM and IA routes (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.43 to 2.00; 35 participants; very low-quality evidence). In contrast, ABI scores appeared higher in BM-MSC versus BM-MNC groups (MD 0.05, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.09; one RCT, 37 participants; low-quality evidence). ABI was not reported in the high versus low cell dose comparison.Similar numbers of participants had improved transcutaneous oxygen tension (TcO₂) with IM versus IA routes (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.72; two RCTs, 62 participants; very low-quality evidence). Single-study data with low-quality evidence show a higher TcO₂ reading in BM-MSC versus BM-MNC groups (MD 8.00, 95% CI 3.46 to 12.54; 37 participants) and in mPBSC- versus BM-MNC-treated groups (MD 1.70, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.99; 150 participants). TcO₂ was not reported in the high versus low cell dose comparison.Study authors reported no significant short-term adverse effects attributed to autologous cell implantation.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Mostly low- and very low-quality evidence suggests no clear differences between different stem cell sources and different treatment regimens of autologous cell implantation for outcomes such as all-cause mortality, amputation rate, ulcer healing, and rest pain for 'no-option' CLI patients. Pooled analyses did not show a clear difference in clinical outcomes whether cells were administered via IM or IA routes. High-quality evidence is lacking; therefore the efficacy and long-term safety of autologous cells derived from different sources, prepared using different protocols, administered at different doses, and delivered via different routes for the treatment of 'no-option' CLI patients, remain to be confirmed.Future RCTs with larger numbers of participants are needed to determine the efficacy of cell-based therapy for CLI patients, along with the optimal cell source, phenotype, dose, and route of implantation. Longer follow-up is needed to confirm the durability of angiogenic potential and the long-term safety of cell-based therapy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is an in vitro experimental study. PVF samples were collected from horseshoe crabs from beaches in Malaysia and the crude extract was prepared. DPSCs were treated with different concentrations of PVF crude extract in an 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyl tetrazolium bromide (MTT) assay (cytotoxicity test). We choose two inhibitory concentrations (IC50 and IC25) and two PVF concentrations which produced more cell viability compared to a negative control (100%) for further tests. Quantitative analysis of the proliferation activity of PVF was studied using the AlamarBlue®assay for 10 days. Population doubling times (PDTs) of the treatment groups were calculated from this assay. Genotoxicity was evaluated based on the CA and Ames tests. Statistical analysis was carried out using independent t test to calculate significant differences in the PDT and mitotic indices in the CA test between the treatment and negative control groups. Significant differences in the data were P<0.05.
RESULTS: A total of four PVF concentrations retrieved from the MTT assay were 26.887 mg/ml (IC50), 14.093 mg/ml (IC25), 0.278 mg/ml (102% cell viability) and 0.019 mg/ml (102.5% cell viability). According to the AlamarBlue®assay, these PVF groups produced comparable proliferation activities compared to the negative (untreated) control. PDTs between PVF groups and the negative control were insignificantly different (P>0.05). No significant aberrations in chromosomes were observed in the PVF groups and the Ames test on the PVF showed the absence of significant positive results.
CONCLUSION: PVF from horseshoe crabs produced insignificant proliferative activity on treated DPSCs. The PVF was non-genotoxic based on the CA and Ames tests.