Growth hormone protects against kainate excitotoxicity and induces BDNF and NT3 expression in chicken neuroretinal cells.

There is increasing evidence to suggest a beneficial neuroprotective effect of growth hormone (GH) in the nervous system. While our previous studies have largely focused on retinal ganglion cells (RGCs), we have also found conclusive evidence of a pro-survival effect of GH in cells of the inner nuclear layer (INL) as well as a protective effect on the dendritic trees of the inner plexiform layer (IPL) in the retina. The administration of GH in primary neuroretinal cell cultures protected and induced neural outgrowths. Our results, both in vitro (embryo) and in vivo (postnatal), showed neuroprotective actions of GH against kainic acid (KA)-induced excitotoxicity in the chicken neuroretina. Intravitreal injections of GH restored brain derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) expression in retinas treated with KA. In addition, we demonstrated that GH over-expression and exogenous administration increased BDNF and neurotrophin-3 (NT3) gene expression in embryonic neuroretinal cells. Thus, GH neuroprotective actions in neural tissues may be mediated by a complex cascade of neurotrophins and growth factors which have been classically related to damage prevention and neuroretinal tissue repair.

Secretagogue induction of GH release in QNR/D cells: prevention of cell death.

Retinal ganglion cells (RGCs) in the chick embryonic neural retina are extrapituitary sites of growth hormone (GH) synthesis and release. The regulation of GH secretion by these cells is largely unknown, although we recently discovered several of the hypothalamic releasing factors involved in pituitary GH regulation (including GH-releasing hormone (GHRH) and thyrotropin releasing hormone, TRH) to be present in the cytoplasm of immortalized quail RGCs (QNR/D cells). QNR/D cells may therefore provide an experimental model for studies on GH regulation in the chick neural retina. The possibility that GHRH and TRH might stimulate GH secretion in QNR/D cells was therefore investigated. Both peptides acutely depleted the GH content of the QNR/D cells, as demonstrated by immunocytochemistry and ELISA, whilst increasing the GH content in incubation media. Both peptides also increased the immunochemical and ELISA content of the QNR/D cells and the content of GH in the incubation media after long-term incubation. Cell survival, determined by metabolic activity of the QNR/D cells and by TUNEL-labeling, was reduced when the endogenous GH content was reduced by GH immunoneutralization, even in the presence of exogenous GHRH or TRH. Cell survival was also reduced when endogenous GHRH was blocked by GHRH immunoneutralization, although the immunoneutralization of endogenous TRH did not affect QNR/D cell survival. In summary, these results demonstrate secretagogue actions of exogenous GHRH and TRH on the secretion of GH from QNR/D cells. They also suggest that endogenous GHRH, but not endogenous TRH, prevents cell death by increasing endogenous GH secretion in QNR/D cells.

Presencia de los familiares durante la realización de procedimientos invasivos / Presence of family members while performing invasive procedures. A prospective study

Introducción: En nuestro medio tradicionalmente no se ha permitido a los familiares de los pacientes permanecer junto al niño cuando se realizaban procedimientos invasivos. Objetivo: Evaluar el grado de satisfacción de los familiares, el personal sanitario y del propio paciente con la presencia de los familiares durante la realización de los procedimientos dolorosos en un servicio de urgencias pediátricas. Material y métodos: Se realizó un estudio observacional prospectivo. Se diseñó un protocolo de actuación y se instruyó al personal sanitario. Se diseñó una encuesta con datos demográficos, datos del procedimiento y grado de satisfacción tanto del paciente y su familiar como del profesional sanitario. Resultados: Se obtuvieron datos de 75 procedimientos. En 5 de ellos los familiares rechazaron la opción de estar presentes. Los más frecuentes fueron punciones lumbares (44%), sutura/cura de heridas (22,7%) y venopunciones (17,3%). El 100% de los niños quisieron que sus familiares estuvieran presentes. El 90% de los familiares y el 57% de los profesionales opinaron que la presencia de los familiares había facilitado el procedimiento. El 90% de los familiares y el 76% de los profesionales opinaron que había sido beneficioso para el niño. El 95% de los familiares y el 71% de los profesionales opinaron que se debería dar la opción a los familiares de estar presentes. El 73% de los profesionales quedaron satisfechos. En una escala del 1 al 10 la satisfacción global de los familiares fue de un 9,5. Conclusiones: En nuestra experiencia la presencia familiar es una práctica posible que facilita la realización de los procedimientos dolorosos y resulta beneficiosa para el niño. Encontramos una alta satisfacción familiar y al mismo tiempo una amplia aceptación por parte del personal sanitario(AU)

Introduction: Family members of child patients have traditionally not been allowed to be present during invasive procedures. Objectives: To evaluate the level of satisfaction of family members, healthcare professionals, and the patients themselves, when family members are present during invasive procedures carried out in the pediatric emergency department. Materials and methods: A prospective observational study was carried out, which included a questionnaire containing demographic information, the details of the procedure, and the level of satisfaction of the patient, their family members, and the healthcare professionals present. Results: Data was obtained from 75 procedures. In 5 of these, family members chose not to be present during the procedure. The most frequent procedures were lumbar punctures (44%), laceration repairs (22,7%) and venopunctures (17,3%). All (100%) the children who were asked wanted their family members to be present. 90% of family members and 57% of healthcare professionals were of the opinion that the presence of family members facilitated the procedure. Furthermore, 90% of family members and 76% of healthcare professionals thought that family presence was beneficial to the patient. 95% of family members and 71% of healthcare professionals thought that the option to be present during invasive procedures should be given to family members. 73% of healthcare professionals were satisfied with the presence of family members. On a scale of one to ten, overall satisfaction of family members was 9.5.Conclusions: In our experience, family presence during invasive procedures is possible, and we have found this to be beneficial to the child. We also found that both family members and healthcare professionals were accepting and also satisfied with this new practice policy(AU)

[Presence of family members while performing invasive procedures. A prospective study]. / Presencia de los familiares durante la realización de procedimientos invasivos.

INTRODUCTION: Family members of child patients have traditionally not been allowed to be present during invasive procedures. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the level of satisfaction of family members, healthcare professionals, and the patients themselves, when family members are present during invasive procedures carried out in the pediatric emergency department. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective observational study was carried out, which included a questionnaire containing demographic information, the details of the procedure, and the level of satisfaction of the patient, their family members, and the healthcare professionals present. RESULTS: Data was obtained from 75 procedures. In 5 of these, family members chose not to be present during the procedure. The most frequent procedures were lumbar punctures (44%), laceration repairs (22,7%) and venopunctures (17,3%). All (100%) the children who were asked wanted their family members to be present. 90% of family members and 57% of healthcare professionals were of the opinion that the presence of family members facilitated the procedure. Furthermore, 90% of family members and 76% of healthcare professionals thought that family presence was beneficial to the patient. 95% of family members and 71% of healthcare professionals thought that the option to be present during invasive procedures should be given to family members. 73% of healthcare professionals were satisfied with the presence of family members. On a scale of one to ten, overall satisfaction of family members was 9.5. CONCLUSIONS: In our experience, family presence during invasive procedures is possible, and we have found this to be beneficial to the child. We also found that both family members and healthcare professionals were accepting and also satisfied with this new practice policy.

Cellular and intracellular distribution of growth hormone in the adult chicken testis.

Endocrine actions of growth hormone (GH) have been implicated during the development of adult testicular function in several mammalian species, and recently intracrine, autocrine, and paracrine effects have been proposed for locally expressed GH. Previous reports have shown the distribution of GH mRNA and the molecular heterogeneity of GH protein in both adult chicken testes and vas deferens. This study provides evidence of the presence and distribution of GH and its receptor (GHR) during all stages of spermatogenesis in adult chicken testes. This hormone and its receptor are not restricted to the cytoplasm; they are also found in the nuclei of spermatogonia, spermatocytes, and spermatids. The pattern of GH isoforms was characterized in the different, isolated germ cell subpopulations, and the major molecular variant in all subpopulations was 17 kDa GH, as reported in other chicken extra-pituitary tissues. Another molecular variant, the 29 kDa moiety, was found mainly in the enriched spermatocyte population, suggesting that it acts at specific developmental stages. The co-localization of GH with the proliferative cell nuclear antigen PCNA (a DNA replication marker present in spermatogonial cells) was demonstrated by immunohistochemistry. These results show for the first time that GH and GHR are present in the nuclei of adult chicken germinal cells, and suggest that GH could participate in proliferation and differentiation during the complex process of spermatogenesis.