Neuropeptidergic signaling partitions arousal behaviors in zebrafish.

Animals modulate their arousal state to ensure that their sensory responsiveness and locomotor activity match environmental demands. Neuropeptides can regulate arousal, but studies of their roles in vertebrates have been constrained by the vast array of neuropeptides and their pleiotropic effects. To overcome these limitations, we systematically dissected the neuropeptidergic modulation of arousal in larval zebrafish. We quantified spontaneous locomotor activity and responsiveness to sensory stimuli after genetically induced expression of seven evolutionarily conserved neuropeptides, including adenylate cyclase activating polypeptide 1b (adcyap1b), cocaine-related and amphetamine-related transcript (cart), cholecystokinin (cck), calcitonin gene-related peptide (cgrp), galanin, hypocretin, and nociceptin. Our study reveals that arousal behaviors are dissociable: neuropeptide expression uncoupled spontaneous activity from sensory responsiveness, and uncovered modality-specific effects upon sensory responsiveness. Principal components analysis and phenotypic clustering revealed both shared and divergent features of neuropeptidergic functions: hypocretin and cgrp stimulated spontaneous locomotor activity, whereas galanin and nociceptin attenuated these behaviors. In contrast, cart and adcyap1b enhanced sensory responsiveness yet had minimal impacts on spontaneous activity, and cck expression induced the opposite effects. Furthermore, hypocretin and nociceptin induced modality-specific differences in responsiveness to changes in illumination. Our study provides the first systematic and high-throughput analysis of neuropeptidergic modulation of arousal, demonstrates that arousal can be partitioned into independent behavioral components, and reveals novel and conserved functions of neuropeptides in regulating arousal.

Cutaneous manifestations of nontargeted and targeted chemotherapies.

Care of the oncologic patient requires an integral understanding of the adverse reactions of chemotherapy. With the advent of targeted agents and immunomodulating therapies, reactions to these newer treatments are of clinical interest. Cutaneous side effects of chemotherapeutic agents, including toxic erythema and mucositis, are common and may require cessation of treatment if associated with discomfort, superinfection, or negative impact on quality of life. This article reviews the cutaneous adverse reactions and treatment options of both conventional cytotoxic chemotherapeutic agents and newer targeted, multikinase inhibitors and immunomodulating therapies. An understanding of possible cutaneous reactions by all providers involved in the care of the oncologic patient is critical for prompt recognition, allowing for appropriate treatment and referral to dermatologists when necessary.

Clinical and Histologic Features of Lichenoid Mucocutaneous Eruptions Due to Anti-Programmed Cell Death 1 and Anti-Programmed Cell Death Ligand 1 Immunotherapy.

Importance: Antagonist antibodies to programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) and programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) have shown remarkable activity in multiple tumor types. Recent US Food and Drug Administration approval of such agents for advanced melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer, and renal cell carcinoma has hastened the need to better characterize their unique toxicity profiles. Objective: To provide a clinical and pathologic description of the lichenoid mucocutaneous adverse effects seen in patients receiving anti-PD-1/PD-L1 treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants: Patients with advanced cancer who were referred to dermatology at Yale-New Haven Hospital, a tertiary care hospital, after developing cutaneous adverse effects while receiving an anti-PD-1 or PD-L1 antibody therapy either as monotherapy or in combination with another agent were identified. Medical records from 2010 to 2015 and available skin biopsy specimens were retrospectively reviewed. Main Outcomes and Measures: Patient demographic characteristics, concurrent medications, therapeutic regimen, type of disease, previous oncologic therapies, clinical morphology of cutaneous lesions, treatment of rash, peripheral blood eosinophil count, tumor response, and skin histologic characteristics if biopsies were available. Results: Patients were 13 men and 7 women, with a mean (range) age of 64 (46-86) years. The majority of cases (16 [80%]) had a clinical morphology consisting of erythematous papules with scale in a variety of distributions. Biopsies were available from 17 patients; 16 (94%) showed features of lichenoid interface dermatitis. Eighteen patients were treated with topical corticosteroids, and only 1 patient required discontinuation of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy. Only 4 of 20 patients (20%) developed peripheral eosinophilia. Sixteen patients (80%) were concurrently taking medications that have been previously reported to cause lichenoid drug eruptions. Conclusions and Relevance: Papular and nodular eruptions with scale, as well as mucosal erosions, with lichenoid features on histologic analysis were a distinct finding seen with anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapies and were generally manageable with topical steroids. Concurrent medications may play a role in the development of this cutaneous adverse effect.