Breast cancer preferentially metastasizes to lung, lymph node, liver, bone, and brain. However, it is unclear whether properties of cancer cells, properties of organ microenvironments, or a combination of both is responsible for this observed organ tropism. We hypothesized that breast cancer cells exhibit distinctive migration/growth patterns in organ microenvironments that mirror common clinical sites of breast cancer metastasis and that receptor-ligand interactions between breast cancer cells and soluble organ-derived factors mediate this behavior. Using an ex vivo model system composed of organ-conditioned media (CM), human breast cancer cells (MDA-MB-231,MDA-MB-468, SUM149, and SUM159) displayed cell line-specific and organ-specific patterns of migration/proliferation that corresponded to their in vivo metastatic behavior. Notably, exposure to lung-CM increased migration of all cell lines and increased proliferation in two of four lines (P < .05). Several cluster of differentiation (CD) 44 ligands including osteopontin (OPN) and L-selectin (SELL) were identified in lung-CM by protein arrays. Immunodepletion of SELL decreased migration of MDA-MB-231 cells, whereas depletion of OPN decreased both migration and proliferation. Pretreatment of cells with a CD44-blocking antibody abrogated migration effects (P < .05). "Stemlike" breast cancer cells with high aldehyde dehydrogenase and CD44 (ALDH(hi)CD44(+)) responded in a distinct chemotactic manner toward organ-CM, preferentially migrating toward lung-CM through CD44 receptor-ligand interactions (P < .05). In contrast, organ-specific changes in migration were not observed for ALDH(low)CD44(-) cells. Our data suggest that interactions between CD44(+) breast cancer cells and soluble factors present in the lung microenvironment may play an important role in determining organotropic metastatic behavior.

Cardiovascular disease risk factors and events are relatively common in PWH. PWH can be safely treated for CVD events with similar procedures as the non-PWH populations, though specific clotting factor prophylaxis protocols are not well defined.

Background Drawing from the philosophical work of Hans‐Georg Gadamer and the perspectives of theorists Mikhail Bakhtin and Kenneth Burke, the aim of this paper is to critically reflect on the meaning of the word “shared.” Method The authors draw on the concept of epistemic justice, which they argue permeates the clinical encounter, to discuss how various forms of, and claims to, knowledge may influence the attainement of shared decision‐making in health care contexts. The specific objectives are twofold: first, the authors draw key concepts from key Gadamerian, Burkean, and Bakhtinian philosophical perspectives to consider shared decision‐making in relation to two types of epistemic injustice: testimonial and hermeneutic epistemic injustice. Second, building on philosopher Paulo Freire's critical pedagogy, the authors emphasize that major changes in educational structures and systems are required to promote the critical reflexivity required to address issues of epistemic justice, in the broader pursuit of authentic shared decision‐making. Results They propose three main areas of focus for helath professions education: (a) changes in content (moving from a focus on biomedical knowledge to more content on social sciences) and methods of teaching (more dialogue and the creation of moments of dissonance); (b) a re‐examination of teachers' role in promoting epistemic justice; and (c) inclusion of patients as partners. Conclusions Without major transformation in what, how, and with whom we teach, future clinicians may be unprepared to enact shared decision‐making in a manner that does justice to the various ways of knowing.

No abstract

BACKGROUND. The role of humoral immunity in the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is not fully understood owing, in large part, to the complexity of antibodies produced in response to the SARS-CoV-2 infection. There is a pressing need for serology tests to assess patient-specific antibody response and predict clinical outcome. METHODS. Using SARS-CoV-2 proteome and peptide microarrays, we screened 146 COVID-19 patients plasma samples to identify antigens and epitopes. This enabled us to develop a master epitope array and an epitope-specific agglutination assay to gauge antibody responses systematically and with high resolution. RESULTS. We identified linear epitopes from the Spike (S) and Nucleocapsid (N) protein and showed that the epitopes enabled higher resolution antibody profiling than the S or N protein antigen. Specifically, we found that antibody responses to the S(811-825), S(881-895) and N(156-170) epitopes negatively or positively correlated with clinical severity or patient survival. Moreover, we found that the P681H and S235F mutations associated with the coronavirus variant of concern B.1.1.7 altered the specificity of the corresponding epitopes. CONCLUSIONS. Epitope-resolved antibody testing not only affords a high-resolution alternativeto conventional immunoassays to delineate the complex humoral immunity to SARS-CoV-2 and differentiate between neutralizing and non-neutralizing antibodies, it may potentially be used to predict clinical outcome. The epitope peptides can be readily modified to detect antibodies against variants of concern (VOC) in both the peptide array and latex agglutination formats.