Usage patterns, health, and nutritional status of long-term multiple dietary supplement users: a cross-sectional study

© 2007 Block et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licens

Induction of Erythroid Differentiation in Human Erythroleukemia Cells by Depletion of Malic Enzyme 2

Malic enzyme 2 (ME2) is a mitochondrial enzyme that catalyzes the conversion of malate to pyruvate and CO2 and uses NAD as a cofactor. Higher expression of this enzyme correlates with the degree of cell de-differentiation. We found that ME2 is expressed in K562 erythroleukemia cells, in which a number of agents have been found to induce differentiation either along the erythroid or the myeloid lineage. We found that knockdown of ME2 led to diminished proliferation of tumor cells and increased apoptosis in vitro. These findings were accompanied by differentiation of K562 cells along the erythroid lineage, as confirmed by staining for glycophorin A and hemoglobin production. ME2 knockdown also totally abolished growth of K562 cells in nude mice. Increased ROS levels, likely reflecting increased mitochondrial production, and a decreased NADPH/NADP+ ratio were noted but use of a free radical scavenger to decrease inhibition of ROS levels did not reverse the differentiation or apoptotic phenotype, suggesting that ROS production is not causally involved in the resultant phenotype. As might be expected, depletion of ME2 induced an increase in the NAD+/NADH ratio and ATP levels fell significantly. Inhibition of the malate-aspartate shuttle was insufficient to induce K562 differentiation. We also examined several intracellular signaling pathways and expression of transcription factors and intermediate filament proteins whose expression is known to be modulated during erythroid differentiation in K562 cells. We found that silencing of ME2 leads to phospho-ERK1/2 inhibition, phospho-AKT activation, increased GATA-1 expression and diminished vimentin expression. Metabolomic analysis, conducted to gain insight into intermediary metabolic pathways that ME2 knockdown might affect, showed that ME2 depletion resulted in high orotate levels, suggesting potential impairment of pyrimidine metabolism. Collectively our data point to ME2 as a potentially novel metabolic target for leukemia therapy

Does targeting manual therapy and/or exercise improve patient outcomes in nonspecific low back pain? A systematic review

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>A central element in the current debate about best practice management of non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) is the efficacy of targeted versus generic (non-targeted) treatment. Many clinicians and researchers believe that tailoring treatment to NSLBP subgroups positively impacts on patient outcomes. Despite this, there are no systematic reviews comparing the efficacy of targeted versus non-targeted manual therapy and/or exercise. This systematic review was undertaken in order to determine the efficacy of such targeted treatment in adults with NSLBP.</p> <p>Method</p> <p>MEDLINE, EMBASE, Current Contents, AMED and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were electronically searched, reference lists were examined and citation tracking performed. Inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials of targeted manual therapy and/or exercise for NSLPB that used trial designs capable of providing robust information on targeted treatment (treatment effect modification) for the outcomes of activity limitation and pain. Included trials needed to be hypothesis-testing studies published in English, Danish or Norwegian. Method quality was assessed using the criteria recommended by the Cochrane Back Review Group.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Four high-quality randomized controlled trials of targeted manual therapy and/or exercise for NSLBP met the inclusion criteria. One study showed statistically significant effects for short-term outcomes using McKenzie directional preference-based exercise. Research into subgroups requires much larger sample sizes than traditional two-group trials and other included studies showed effects that might be clinically important in size but were not statistically significant with their samples sizes.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The clinical implications of these results are that they provide very cautious evidence supporting the notion that treatment targeted to subgroups of patients with NSLBP may improve patient outcomes. The results of the studies included in this review are too patchy, inconsistent and the samples investigated are too small for any recommendation of any treatment in routine clinical practice to be based on these findings. The research shows that adequately powered controlled trials using designs capable of providing robust information on treatment effect modification are uncommon. Considering how central the notion of targeted treatment is to manual therapy principles, further studies using this research method should be a priority for the clinical and research communities.</p

Effects of Anacetrapib in Patients with Atherosclerotic Vascular Disease

BACKGROUND: Patients with atherosclerotic vascular disease remain at high risk for cardiovascular events despite effective statin-based treatment of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels. The inhibition of cholesteryl ester transfer protein (CETP) by anacetrapib reduces LDL cholesterol levels and increases high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol levels. However, trials of other CETP inhibitors have shown neutral or adverse effects on cardiovascular outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving 30,449 adults with atherosclerotic vascular disease who were receiving intensive atorvastatin therapy and who had a mean LDL cholesterol level of 61 mg per deciliter (1.58 mmol per liter), a mean non-HDL cholesterol level of 92 mg per deciliter (2.38 mmol per liter), and a mean HDL cholesterol level of 40 mg per deciliter (1.03 mmol per liter). The patients were assigned to receive either 100 mg of anacetrapib once daily (15,225 patients) or matching placebo (15,224 patients). The primary outcome was the first major coronary event, a composite of coronary death, myocardial infarction, or coronary revascularization. RESULTS: During the median follow-up period of 4.1 years, the primary outcome occurred in significantly fewer patients in the anacetrapib group than in the placebo group (1640 of 15,225 patients [10.8%] vs. 1803 of 15,224 patients [11.8%]; rate ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.85 to 0.97; P=0.004). The relative difference in risk was similar across multiple prespecified subgroups. At the trial midpoint, the mean level of HDL cholesterol was higher by 43 mg per deciliter (1.12 mmol per liter) in the anacetrapib group than in the placebo group (a relative difference of 104%), and the mean level of non-HDL cholesterol was lower by 17 mg per deciliter (0.44 mmol per liter), a relative difference of -18%. There were no significant between-group differences in the risk of death, cancer, or other serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with atherosclerotic vascular disease who were receiving intensive statin therapy, the use of anacetrapib resulted in a lower incidence of major coronary events than the use of placebo. (Funded by Merck and others; Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN48678192 ; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01252953 ; and EudraCT number, 2010-023467-18 .)