MIR21 Drives Resistance to Heat Shock Protein 90 Inhibition in Cholangiocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Cholangiocarcinomas (CCA) are resistant to chemotherapy, so new therapeutic agents are needed. We performed a screen to identify small-molecule compounds that are active against CCAs. Levels of microRNA 21 (MIR21 or miRNA21) are increased in CCAs. We investigated whether miRNA21 mediates resistance of CCA cells and organoids to HSP90 inhibitors. METHODS: We performed a high-throughput screen of 484 small-molecule compounds to identify those that reduced viability of 6 human CCA cell lines. We tested the effects of HSP90 inhibitors on cells with disruption of the MIR21 gene, cells incubated with MIR21 inhibitors, and stable cell lines with inducible expression of MIR21. We obtained CCA biopsies from patients, cultured them as organoids (patient-derived organoids). We assessed their architecture, mutation and gene expression patterns, response to compounds in culture, and when grown as subcutaneous xenograft tumors in mice. RESULTS: Cells with IDH1 and PBRM1 mutations had the highest level of sensitivity to histone deacetylase inhibitors. HSP90 inhibitors were effective in all cell lines, irrespective of mutations. Sensitivity of cells to HSP90 inhibitors correlated inversely with baseline level of MIR21. Disruption of MIR21 increased cell sensitivity to HSP90 inhibitors. CCA cells that expressed transgenic MIR21 were more resistant to HSP90 inhibitors than cells transfected with control vectors; inactivation of MIR21 in these cells restored sensitivity to these agents. MIR21 was shown to target the DnaJ heat shock protein family (Hsp40) member B5 (DNAJB5). Transgenic expression of DNAJB5 in CCA cells that overexpressed MIR21 re-sensitized them to HSP90 inhibitors. Sensitivity of patient-derived organoids to HSP90 inhibitors, in culture and when grown as xenograft tumors in mice, depended on expression of miRNA21. CONCLUSIONS: miRNA21 appears to mediate resistance of CCA cells to HSP90 inhibitors by reducing levels of DNAJB5. HSP90 inhibitors might be developed for the treatment of CCA and miRNA21 might be a marker of sensitivity to these agents.

The effects of intranasal esketamine on on-road driving performance in patients with major depressive disorder or persistent depressive disorder.

BACKGROUND: Intranasal esketamine demonstrates rapid improvement of depressive symptoms. However, transient adverse effects (dissociation, sedation and dizziness) may occur, which could impact driving performance. AIMS: To evaluate the effects of 84 mg intranasal esketamine on driving performance in unipolar major depressive disorder (MDD) or persistent depressive disorder (PDD) patients. METHODS: The study consisted of two parts. Part A was a single-blind, double-dummy, randomized three-period, cross-over study to compare effects of esketamine versus placebo on next morning driving, 18 ± 2 h post-treatment. Alcohol was administered to demonstrate assay sensitivity. In Part B, same-day driving, 6 ± 0.5 hours post-treatment, was assessed during twice weekly esketamine administration for 3 weeks. Twenty-seven patients with mild-to-moderate MDD or PDD without psychotic features completed a 100 km on-the-road driving test on a public highway in normal traffic. The primary outcome was standard deviation of lateral position (SDLP; cm; weaving of car). RESULTS: In Part A, alcohol impaired driving performance compared to placebo: Least-square means (95% CI), p-value for delta SDLP (cm) compared with placebo: (ΔSDLP = + 1.83 (1.03; 2.62), p < 0.001), whereas esketamine did not: (ΔSDLP = -0.23 (-1.04; 0.58), p = 0.572). In Part B, weekly driving tests showed no differences between placebo baseline SDLP and after esketamine administration over 3 weeks: Day 11: (ΔSDLP = -0.96 (-3.72; 1.81), p = 0.493), Day 18: (ΔSDLP = -0.56 (-3.33; 2.20), p = 0.686) and Day 25: (ΔSDLP = -1.05 (-3.82; 1.71), p = 0.451). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, esketamine did not impair on-road driving performance the next morning following a single dose, or on same day after repeated administration.

Immune Responses after Heavy Alcohol Consumption: Cytokine Concentrations in Hangover-Sensitive and Hangover-Resistant Drinkers.

This study investigated immunological changes during an alcohol hangover, and the possible difference between hangover-resistant and hangover-sensitive drinkers in terms of immune reactivity. Using a semi-naturalistic design, N = 36 healthy social drinkers (18 to 30 years old) provided saliva samples on a control day (after drinking no alcohol) and on a post-alcohol day. Hangover severity was rated directly after saliva collection. Cytokine concentrations, interleukin (IL)-1ß, IL-6, IL-8, IL-10 and tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α, and hangover severity were compared between both test days and between hangover-sensitive and -resistant drinkers. Data from N = 35 drinkers (17 hangover-sensitive and 18 hangover-resistant) were included in the statistical analyses. Relative to the control day, there were significant increases in saliva IL-6 and IL-10 concentrations on the post-alcohol day. No significant differences in cytokine concentrations were found between hangover-sensitive and hangover-resistant drinkers, nor did any change in cytokine concentration correlate significantly with hangover severity. In line with previous controlled studies assessing cytokines in blood, the current naturalistic study using saliva samples also demonstrated that the immune system responds to high-level alcohol intake. However, further research is warranted, as, in contrast to previous findings in blood samples, changes in saliva cytokine concentrations did not differ significantly between hangover-sensitive and hangover-resistant drinkers, nor did they correlate significantly with hangover severity.