6 research outputs found

    Analysis of the Variability of Therapeutic Indications of Medicinal Species in the Northeast of Brazil: Comparative Study

    No full text
    Ethnopharmacological Relevance. This study aims to evaluate the versatility of these species and their agreement of use and/or the informants’ knowledge and verify the variability of the information on the indicated medicinal species in comparison to other species from northeastern Brazilian areas. Materials and Methods. Ethnobotanical information was acquired through interviews with 23 residents of the Quincuncá community, northeastern Brazil. From the obtained data, a comparative analysis of the therapeutic indications with other 40 areas in different biomes was conducted. For that, the relative importance index and informant consensus factor were calculated and compared to other indices evaluated in the literature. Results. A total of 39 medicinal species were cited and twenty-six species showed similarities among their therapeutic indications; however, species as Geoffroea spinosa, Lantana camara, and others can be highlighted, present in community disease indications that were not verified for other areas. Myracrodruon urundeuva, Mimosa tenuiflora, Stryphnodendron rotundifolium, and Amburana cearensis had the greatest versatility. In the Quincuncá community, medicinal species were indicated for 49 diseases, which were grouped into 15 categories of body systems. Conclusion. This study shows the presented divergence in relation to their therapeutic use; in this point, these divergences reinforce the importance of pharmacological research

    Evidence of traditionality of Brazilian medicinal plants: The case studies of Stryphnodendron adstringens (Mart.) Coville (barbatimão) barks and Copaifera spp. (copaíba) oleoresin in wound healing

    No full text

    Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)

    No full text
    In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field

    Empagliflozin in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease

    No full text
    Background The effects of empagliflozin in patients with chronic kidney disease who are at risk for disease progression are not well understood. The EMPA-KIDNEY trial was designed to assess the effects of treatment with empagliflozin in a broad range of such patients. Methods We enrolled patients with chronic kidney disease who had an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of at least 20 but less than 45 ml per minute per 1.73 m(2) of body-surface area, or who had an eGFR of at least 45 but less than 90 ml per minute per 1.73 m(2) with a urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (with albumin measured in milligrams and creatinine measured in grams) of at least 200. Patients were randomly assigned to receive empagliflozin (10 mg once daily) or matching placebo. The primary outcome was a composite of progression of kidney disease (defined as end-stage kidney disease, a sustained decrease in eGFR to < 10 ml per minute per 1.73 m(2), a sustained decrease in eGFR of & GE;40% from baseline, or death from renal causes) or death from cardiovascular causes. Results A total of 6609 patients underwent randomization. During a median of 2.0 years of follow-up, progression of kidney disease or death from cardiovascular causes occurred in 432 of 3304 patients (13.1%) in the empagliflozin group and in 558 of 3305 patients (16.9%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64 to 0.82; P < 0.001). Results were consistent among patients with or without diabetes and across subgroups defined according to eGFR ranges. The rate of hospitalization from any cause was lower in the empagliflozin group than in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.78 to 0.95; P=0.003), but there were no significant between-group differences with respect to the composite outcome of hospitalization for heart failure or death from cardiovascular causes (which occurred in 4.0% in the empagliflozin group and 4.6% in the placebo group) or death from any cause (in 4.5% and 5.1%, respectively). The rates of serious adverse events were similar in the two groups. Conclusions Among a wide range of patients with chronic kidney disease who were at risk for disease progression, empagliflozin therapy led to a lower risk of progression of kidney disease or death from cardiovascular causes than placebo
    corecore