Antiviral and Anti-Inflammatory Therapeutic Effect of RAGE-Ig Protein against Multiple SARS-CoV-2 Variants of Concern Demonstrated in K18-hACE2 Mouse and Syrian Golden Hamster Models.

SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VOCs) continue to evolve and reemerge with chronic inflammatory long COVID sequelae, necessitating the development of anti-inflammatory therapeutic molecules. Therapeutic effects of the receptor for advanced glycation end products (RAGE) were reported in many inflammatory diseases. However, a therapeutic effect of RAGE in COVID-19 has not been reported. In the present study, we investigated whether and how the RAGE-Ig fusion protein would have an antiviral and anti-inflammatory therapeutic effect in the COVID-19 system. The protective therapeutic effect of RAGE-Ig was determined in vivo in K18-hACE2 transgenic mice and Syrian golden hamsters infected with six VOCs of SARS-CoV-2. The underlying antiviral mechanism of RAGE-Ig was determined in vitro in SARS-CoV-2-infected human lung epithelial cells (BEAS-2B). Following treatment of K18-hACE2 mice and hamsters infected with various SARS-CoV-2 VOCs with RAGE-Ig, we demonstrated (1) significant dose-dependent protection (i.e., greater survival, less weight loss, lower virus replication in the lungs); (2) a reduction of inflammatory macrophages (F4/80+/Ly6C+) and neutrophils (CD11b+/Ly6G+) infiltrating the infected lungs; (3) a RAGE-Ig dose-dependent increase in the expression of type I IFNs (IFN-α and IFN-ß) and type III IFN (IFNλ2) and a decrease in the inflammatory cytokines (IL-6 and IL-8) in SARS-CoV-2-infected human lung epithelial cells; and (4) a dose-dependent decrease in the expression of CD64 (FcgR1) on monocytes and lung epithelial cells from symptomatic COVID-19 patients. Our preclinical findings revealed type I and III IFN-mediated antiviral and anti-inflammatory therapeutic effects of RAGE-Ig protein against COVID-19 caused by multiple SARS-CoV-2 VOCs.

Experiences of hereditary cancer care among transgender and gender diverse people: "It's gender. It's cancer risk it's everything".

Transgender and gender diverse (TGD) individuals are a significant yet underrepresented population within genetic counseling research and broader LGBTQI+ health studies. This underrepresentation perpetuates a cycle of exclusion from the production of medical knowledge, impacting the quality and equity of care received by TGD individuals. This issue is particularly poignant in cancer genetic counseling, where TGD individuals with elevated cancer risk receive risk assessment, counseling, and referral to support based on risk figures and standards of care developed for cisgender individuals. The experiences of TGD individuals navigating inherited cancer syndromes remain largely undocumented in medical literature, posing challenges to the provision of inclusive care by genetics providers. To bridge this knowledge gap, we conducted a cross-sectional qualitative study. Nineteen semi-structured interviews were held with gender diverse adults having hereditary cancer syndromes, family histories of such syndromes, or personal histories of chest cancer. Our study employed thematic analysis using combined inductive and deductive methods to illuminate how hereditary cancer care intersects with participants' gender identities, gender expression, and gender-affirming care experiences. Participants reflected on care experiences that felt affirming or triggered gender dysphoria. Participants also discussed the interplay between risk-reducing mastectomy and top surgery, exploring co-emergent dynamics between cancer risk management and gender expression. Significantly, participants identified actionable strategies for healthcare providers to enhance support for gender diverse patients, including the mindful use of gendered language, collaborative decision-making, and conveying allyship. These findings offer valuable insights into tailoring genetic counseling to meet the unique needs of TGD individuals, advancing the path toward inclusive and appropriate care for LGBTQI+ individuals with hereditary cancer syndromes.

Beyond multiple choice: Clinical simulation as a rigorous and inclusive method for assessing genetic counseling competencies.

Educational use of clinical simulation is a way for students to immerse themselves within a realistic yet safe and structured environment as they practice clinical skills. It is widely used in healthcare training and evaluation, and there are best practices for design, implementation, debriefing, and assessment. An increasing number of genetic counseling graduate programs use simulation in various ways, ranging from role-plays to working with professional simulated/standardized patient (SP) actors. At this time, there is very little consistency across programs, research on the approaches, and standards by which simulation is incorporated into training. Simulation is an understudied but promising approach for genetic counselor (GC) education and assessment. After graduation, GCs demonstrate their competence as entry-level providers through American Board of Genetic Counseling (ABGC) multiple-choice examination (MCE), along with their participatory clinical encounters from graduate training. Data from genetic counseling and other professions highlight the limitations and biases of MCEs, suggesting they not only fail to accurately capture competency, but also that they disadvantage underrepresented individuals from entering the field. In addition, MCEs are limited as a tool for assessing nuanced counseling and communication skills, as compared to more quantitative scientific knowledge. We propose that innovative, evidence-based approaches such as simulation have the potential to not only enhance learning, but also to allow GCs to better demonstrate competency during training and in relation to the board examination. Collaborative approaches, research, and funding are needed to further explore the viability of routinely incorporating simulation into GC training and assessment.

Queering genomics: How cisnormativity undermines genomic science.

Over the past century, genetics and genomics ("genomics") have contributed significantly to our knowledge of human biology and disease. Genomics has also bolstered inaccurate and harmful arguments about "essential" differences between socially defined groups. These purported differences have reinforced class hierarchies and justified the mistreatment of groups such as Black people, Indigenous people, and other people of color and/or people with disabilities. With this history in mind, we explore how genomics is used to reinforce scientifically unsound understandings of the relationship between two fundamental aspects of the human experience: sex and gender. We argue that imprecise, inaccurate practices for collecting data and conducting genomic research have adversely influenced genomic science and can contribute to the stigmatization of people whose sex and/or gender challenge binary expectations. The results have been to preclude transgender and intersex people from accessing high-quality, evidence-based healthcare and to hinder their participation in scientifically sound research. In this perspective, we use the lens of queer theory to render this situation more visible. First, we highlight the theoretical contributions queer theory can make to genomic science. Second, we examine practices in research and clinical genomics that exclude and stigmatize transgender and intersex people. Third, we highlight the ways that many current genomic research practices generate false conclusions that are used to support unjust public policies. We conclude by recommending ways that clinicians and researchers can-and should-harness the scientific, social, and cultural power of genomics to advance knowledge and improve lives across the spectra of sex and gender.

Primary Care Providers' Experiences With an Active Elective Genetic Testing Program.

Elective genetic testing (EGT) programs that provide pharmacogenomic information to guide medication management and screen for medically actionable disease predispositions are emerging in a number of health systems. Primary care providers (PCPs) are at the forefront of test initiation, patient education, and management of EGT results. However, little research has examined the experiences of PCPs in health systems offering clinical EGT. We conducted semi-structured interviews, a sub-study of the larger mixed-methods Imagenetics Initiative, with 16 PCPs at a health system in the Midwest with a clinical EGT program supported by provider education, automated clinical decision support, and enhanced access to genetic specialists. The purpose of these interviews was to understand perceptions about the benefits and barriers of implementing EGT in clinical practice. Thematic analysis indicated that EGT is conceptualized similar to traditional diagnostic services. PCPs were generally favorable toward EGT; however, targeted education did not dispel misconceptions about the goals, results, and limitations of EGT. Most PCPs endorsed the potential utility of EGT. Pharmacogenomic profiling was seen as having more immediate impact for patients than screening for monogenic disease risks. PCPs reported that they weighed discussions about EGT against time limitations and the need to prioritize patients' existing health concerns. Regardless of their education levels and familiarity with genetics, PCPs desired additional educational resources and greater access to genetic specialists. Our study provides unique insight into PCPs' experiences with clinical EGT in health systems that have adopted EGT and highlights the practical challenges and potential opportunities of EGT integration.