1.Prevention and treatment of acute graft-versus-host disease in mice by bortezomib
Haiying SUN ; Huayun GENG ; Lingyu ZENG ; Zhenyu LI ; Kailin XU
Chinese Journal of Organ Transplantation 2011;32(1):11-15
Objective To observe the effect of bortezomib on acute graft-versus-host disease (aGVHD) in an aGVHD model of mice and investigate the related mechanism. Methods Male C57BL/6( H-2Kb)mice were used as donors and female Balb/c (H-2Kd) mice used as recipients. Balb/c mice received total body irradiation (TBI) by 7.0 Gy X-radiation, and randomly divided into five groups. normal (group A), TBI (group B), TBI + bortezomib (group C), TBI + bone marrow cells (BMC) + spleen cells (SC) (group D) and TBI + bortezomib + BMC + SC (group E). The physical signs and the pathological damage of aGVHD, mean survival time, and chimerism were observed in recipients. The NF-κB p65 levels in nuclei of the liver and small intestine tissues of groups A,B and C were analyzed by Western blot. Results ( 1 ) The clinical aGVHD score in group D was (7.37±0. 32), significantly higher than in group E (5.85 ± 0.40) (P<0. 05). Histopathology of the gut, liver and skin illuminated that the Ⅲ-Ⅳ degree GVHD occurred in group D. The occurrence of aGVHD in group E was later than in group D. The symptoms and the pathological damage of aGVHD in group E were milder than in group D. The average survival time in group E was significantly longer than that in group D (P<0.05). The percentage of donor-derived cells in recipient mice was above 90% at day 12 after transplantation; (2) NF-κB p65 levels in nuclei of the liver and small intestine tissues in group B was significantly higher than in group C on the day 1,3 and 5 (P<0. 05). Conclusion Bortezomib can inhibit the activation and expression of NF-κB,which may be the underlying mechanism for it to relieve aGVHD.
2.Application and effectt of various information platforms in the training of newly registered nurses
Xiangli WANG ; Caihui ZHANG ; Lingyu LIU ; Junmei GENG ; Fang LI ; Jinli GUO
Chinese Journal of Nursing 2017;52(z1):69-71
Objective To explore the effect of various information means in the training of newly recruited nurses and to provide a practical basis for comprehensive and thorough development of the training. Methods Nurses who are enrolled in 2015 were chosen as the test group. Its applications can be in the form of Mobile APP,office software,online software and We Chat public platform. Afterwards,the effect of various information means can be judged by comparing the test results with the nurses who are enrolled in 2013 (the control group). The nurses in the test group were surveyed in the form of questionnaires to evaluate the training effect. Results The scores of theory ex amination and nasal feeding in the test group were higher than those of control group(P<0.01). The 93.8 percent of the nurses in test group believe that training is beneficial to the understanding and consolidation of knowledge as well as to improve the ability of self-learning. Also the training effect is prominent. Conclusion The various information means in the training of newly recruited nurses can improve training efficiency and enhance training effectiveness.
3.Up-regulation of soluble vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 1 expression in co-culture of human umbilical cord-derived mesenchymal stem cells and rheumatoid arthritis fibroblast-like synoviocytes
Yu WEI ; Xiaojun TANG ; Lingyu GENG ; Lingying NIU ; Chun WANG ; Yue SUN ; Bingzhu HUA ; Cheng ZHAO
Chinese Journal of Rheumatology 2018;22(10):691-694
Objective To investigate the expression of soluble vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 1 (sFlt1) in human umbilical cord-derived mesenchymal stem cells (HUCMSC) under the condition of inflammatory cytokine and co-culture with rheumatoid arthritis fibroblast-like synoviocytes (RA-FLSs).Methods ① HUCMSC were cultured alone or stimulated by Tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-αt,interferon (IFN)-γor the combination of TNF-α and IFN-γ.The sFh1 levels of each group were detected by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) at 24 h,48 h and 72 h respectively.② RA-FLSs and HUCMSC were cocultured in a transwell system with both of them cultured alone as control for 72 hours.ELISA was used to detect sFlt1 levels in each group.T test was used for comparison between two groups,and ANOVA was used to compare multi-group variables.Results ① The sFlt1 levels of TNF-α + IFN-γ group were significantly higher than those of the control group at 24 h and 48 h (24 h (5.4±0.4) ng/ml vs (2.8±1.7) ng/ml,t=0.942,P=0.026;48 h (7.2±0.8) vs (4.3±1.0) ng/ml,t=4.285,P=0.005),while that at 72 h was not significantly different [(9.1±1.7) ng/ml vs (7.0±1.4) ng/ml,t=0.683,P=0.52].And no significant difference in sFlt1 levels between control group and TNF-α group or IFN-γ stimulation group were observed.② Compared with RA-FLSs,the expression of sFlt1 in HUCMSC was significantly higher (8.19±3.64) ng/ml vs (0.19±0.08) ng/ml,t=7.280,P<0.01].After co-cultured with RA-FLSs and HUCMSC,the sFlt1 concentration of the co-culture group was significantly higher than that of HUCMSC group [(17.26±6.92) ng/ml vs (8.19±3.64) ng/ml,t=3.985,P=0.000 7].Conclusion The sFlt1 expression of HUCMSC is up-regulated by inflammatory cytokine TNF-α combined with IFN-γ.RA FLSs may promote the co-cultured HUCMSC to increase sFlt1 expression by secreting inflammatory factors.
4. An interlaboratory comparison study on the detection of RUNX1-RUNX1T1 fusion transcript levels and WT1 transcript levels
Yazhen QIN ; Liwen ZHU ; Shuang LIN ; Suxia GENG ; Shengwei LIU ; Hui CHENG ; Chengye WU ; Min XIAO ; Xiaoqing LI ; Ruiping HU ; Lili WANG ; Haiyan LIU ; Daoxin MA ; Tao GUAN ; Yuanxin YE ; Ting NIU ; Jiannong CEN ; Lisha LU ; Li SUN ; Tonghua YANG ; Yungui WANG ; Tao LI ; Yue WANG ; Qinghua LI ; Xiaosu ZHAO ; Lingdi LI ; Wenmin CHEN ; Lingyu LONG ; Xiaojun HUANG
Chinese Journal of Hematology 2019;40(11):889-894
Objective:
To investigate the current status and real performance of the detection of RUNX1-RUNX1T1 fusion transcript levels and WT1 transcript levels in China through interlaboratory comparison.
Methods:
Peking University People’s Hospital (PKUPH) prepared the samples for comparison. That is, the fresh RUNX1-RUNX1T1 positive (+) bone morrow nucleated cells were serially diluted with RUNX1-RUNX1T1 negative (-) nucleated cells from different patients. Totally 23 sets with 14 different samples per set were prepared. TRIzol reagent was added in each tube and thoroughly mixed with cells for homogenization. Each laboratory simultaneously tested RUNX1-RUNX1T1 and WT1 transcript levels of one set of samples by real-time quantitative PCR method. All transcript levels were reported as the percentage of RUNX1-RUNX1T1 or WT1 transcript copies/ABL copies. Spearman correlation coefficient between the reported transcript levels of each participated laboratory and those of PKUPH was calculated.
Results:
①RUNX1-RUNX1T1 comparison: 9 samples were (+) and 5 were (-) , the false negative and positive rates of the 20 participated laboratories were 0 (0/180) and 5% (5/100) , respectively. The reported transcript levels of all 9 positive samples were different among laboratories. The median reported transcript levels of 9 positive samples were from 0.060% to 176.7%, which covered 3.5-log. The ratios of each sample’s highest to the lowest reported transcript levels were from 5.5 to 12.3 (one result which obviously deviated from other laboratories’ results was not included) , 85% (17/20) of the laboratories had correlation coefficient ≥0.98. ②WT1 comparison: The median reported transcript levels of all 14 samples were from 0.17% to 67.6%, which covered 2.6-log. The ratios of each sample’s highest to the lowest reported transcript levels were from 5.3-13.7, 62% (13/21) of the laboratories had correlation coefficient ≥0.98. ③ The relative relationship of the reported RUNX1-RUNX1T1 transcript levels between the participants and PKUPH was not always consistent with that of WT1 transcript levels. Both RUNX1-RUNX1T1 and WT1 transcript levels from 2 and 7 laboratories were individually lower than and higher than those of PKUPH, whereas for the rest 11 laboratories, one transcript level was higher than and the other was lower than that of PKUPH.
Conclusion
The reported RUNX1-RUNX1T1 and WT1 transcript levels were different among laboratories for the same sample. Most of the participated laboratories reported highly consistent result with that of PKUPH. The relationship between laboratories of the different transcript levels may not be the same.