Conserved targeting information in mammalian and fungal peroxisomal tail-anchored proteins

The targeting signals and mechanisms of soluble peroxisomal proteins are well understood, whereas less is known about the signals and targeting routes of peroxisomal membrane proteins (PMP). Pex15 and PEX26, tail-anchored proteins in yeast and mammals, respectively, exert a similar cellular function in the recruitment of AAA peroxins at the peroxisomal membrane. But despite their common role, Pex15 and PEX26 are neither homologs nor they are known to follow similar targeting principles. Here we show that Pex15 targets to peroxisomes in mammalian cells, and PEX26 reaches peroxisomes when expressed in yeast cells. In both proteins C-terminal targeting information is sufficient for correct sorting to the peroxisomal membrane. In yeast, PEX26 follows the pathway that also ensures correct targeting of Pex15: PEX26 enters the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) in a GET-dependent and Pex19-independent manner. Like in yeast, PEX26 enters the ER in mammalian cells, however, independently of GET/TRC40. These data show that conserved targeting information is employed in yeast and higher eukaryotes during the biogenesis of peroxisomal tail-anchored proteins

Conserved targeting information in mammalian and fungal peroxisomal tail-anchored proteins

The targeting signals and mechanisms of soluble peroxisomal proteins are well understood, whereas less is known about the signals and targeting routes of peroxisomal membrane proteins (PMP). Pex15 and PEX26, tail-anchored proteins in yeast and mammals, respectively, exert a similar cellular function in the recruitment of AAA peroxins at the peroxisomal membrane. But despite their common role, Pex15 and PEX26 are neither homologs nor they are known to follow similar targeting principles. Here we show that Pex15 targets to peroxisomes in mammalian cells, and PEX26 reaches peroxisomes when expressed in yeast cells. In both proteins C-terminal targeting information is sufficient for correct sorting to the peroxisomal membrane. In yeast, PEX26 follows the pathway that also ensures correct targeting of Pex15: PEX26 enters the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) in a GET-dependent and Pex19-independent manner. Like in yeast, PEX26 enters the ER in mammalian cells, however, independently of GET/TRC40. These data show that conserved targeting information is employed in yeast and higher eukaryotes during the biogenesis of peroxisomal tail-anchored proteins

Impact of treatment planning target volumen (PTV) size on radiation induced diarrhoea following selenium supplementation in gynecologic radiation oncology - a subgroup analysis of a multicenter, phase III trial

Background: In a previous analysis (Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 70:828-835,2010), we assessed whether an adjuvant supplementation with selenium (Se) improves Se status and reduces the radiation-induced side-effects of patients treated by adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) for cervical and uterine cancer. Now, a potential relation between the planning target volume (PTV) of the RT and the Se effect concerning radiation induced diarrhoea was evaluated in detail. Methods: Whole blood Se concentrations had been measured in patients with cervical (n=11) and uterine cancer (n=70) after surgical treatment, during, and at the end of RT. Patients with initial Se concentrations of less than 84 μg/l were categorized as Se-deficient and randomized before RT to receive Se (as sodium selenite) per os on the days of RT, or to receive no supplement during RT. Diarrhoea was graded according to the Common Toxicity Criteria system (CTC, Version 2a). The evaluation of the PTV of the RT was ascertained with the help of a specialised computer-assisted treatment planning software used for radiation planning procedure. Results: A total of 81 patients had been randomized for the initial supplementation study, 39 of which received Se [selenium group, SeG] and 42 serving as controls [control group, CG]. Mean Se levels did not differ between SeG and CG upon study initiation, but were significantly higher in the SeG compared to the CG at the end of RT. The actuarial incidence of at least CTC 2 radiation induced diarrhoea in the SeG was 20.5% compared to 44.5% in the CG (p=0.04). The median PTV in both groups was 1302 ml (916–4608). With a PTV of 1302 ml (n=40) the actuarial incidence of at least CTC 2 diarrhoea in the SeG was 19.1% (4 of 21 patients) versus 52.6% (10 of 19 patients) in the CG (p=0.046). Conclusions: Se supplementation during RT was effective to improve blood Se status in Se-deficient cervical and uterine cancer patients, and reduces episodes and severity of RT-induced diarrhoea. This effect was most pronounced and significant in patients with large PTV (> 1302 ml)

Early Mortality among Patients with Head and Neck Cancer Diagnosed in Thuringia, Germany, between 1996 and 2016—A Population-Based Study

Simple Summary When we consider the outcome of cancer treatment, we mostly focus on overall survival: studies on early mortality in head and neck cancer (HNC) are sparse. This retrospective population-based study investigated early mortality of HNC and the influence of patients’ tumor and treatment characteristics. All 8288 patients with primary HNC of the German federal state Thuringia from 1996 to 2016 were included. Statistics were performed to identify independent factors for 30-day, 90-day, and 180-day mortality. The 30-, 90-, and 180-day mortality risks were 1.8%, 5.1%, and 9.6%, respectively. Male sex, increasing age, larger tumor size, and distant metastasis, tumors of the cavity of mouth, oropharynx, and hypopharynx had a significantly greater 180-day mortality. Surgery, radiotherapy, and multimodal therapy were associated with decreased 180-day mortality. Typical factors associated with worse overall survival had the most important impact on early mortality in HNC patients in a population-based setting. Abstract Population-based studies on early mortality in head and neck cancer (HNC) are sparse. This retrospective population-based study investigated early mortality of HNC and the influence of patients’ tumor and treatment characteristics. All 8288 patients with primary HNC of the German federal state Thuringia from 1996 to 2016 were included. Univariate and multivariate analysis were performed to identify independent factors for 30-day, 90-day, and 180-day mortality. The 30-, 90-, and 180-day mortality risks were 1.8%, 5.1%, and 9.6%, respectively. In multivariable analysis, male sex (odds ratio (OR) 1.41; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08–1.84), increasing age (OR 1.81; CI 1.49–2.19), higher T (T4: OR 3.09; CI 1.96–4.88) and M1 classification (OR 1.97; CI 1.43–2.73), advanced stage (IV: OR 3.97; CI 1.97–8.00), tumors of the cavity of mouth (OR 3.47; CI 1.23–9.75), oropharynx (OR 3.01; CI 1.06–8.51), and hypopharynx (OR 3.27; CI 1.14–9.40) had a significantly greater 180-day mortality. Surgery (OR 0.51; CI 0.36–0.73), radiotherapy (OR 0.37; CI 0.25–0.53), and multimodal therapy (OR 0.10; CI 0.07–0.13) were associated with decreased 180-day mortality. Typical factors associated with worse overall survival had the most important impact on early mortality in a population-based setting

Role of Intraparotid and Neck Lymph Node Metastasis in Primary Parotid Cancer Surgery: A Population-Based Analysis

Simple Summary The prognostic role of intraparotid (PAR) and cervical lymph node (LN) metastasis on overall survival (OS) of primary parotid cancer is unclear. All 345 Thuringian patients with parotid cancer from 1996 to 2016 were included in a population-based study. OS was assessed in relation to the total number of removed PAR and cervical LN, number of positive intraparotid (PAR+), positive cervical LN, LN ratio, log odds of positive LN (LODDS), as well as including the PAR as LODDS-PAR. PAR was assessed in 42% of the patients (22% of these PAR+). T and N classification were not independent predictors of OS. When combining T with LODDS instead of N, higher T became a strong prognosticator, but not LODDS. When combining T classification with LODDS-PAR, both higher T classification and the classification with LODDS-PAR became independent predictors of worse OS. LODDS-PAR seems to be an optimal prognosticator for OS in primary parotid cancer. Abstract This population-based study investigated the prognostic role of intraparotid (PAR) and cervical lymph node (LN) metastasis on overall survival (OS) of primary parotid cancer. All 345 patients (median age: 66 years; 43% female, 49% N+, 31% stage IV) of the Thuringian cancer registries with parotid cancer from 1996 to 2016 were included. OS was assessed in relation to the total number of removed PAR and cervical LN, number of positive intraparotid (PAR+), positive cervical LN, LN ratio, log odds of positive LN (LODDS), as well as including the PAR as LODDS-PAR. PAR was assessed in 42% of the patients (22% of these PAR+). T and N classification were not independent predictors of OS. When combining T with LODDS instead of N, higher T (T3/T4) became a prognosticator (hazard ratio (HR) = 2.588; CI = 1.329–5.040; p = 0.005) but not LODDS ( p > 0.05). When combining T classification with LODDS-PAR, both higher T classification (HR = 2.256; CI = 1.288–3.950; p = 0.004) and the alternative classification with LODDS-PAR (≥median −1.11; HR 2.078; CI = 1.155–3.739; p = 0.015) became independent predictors of worse OS. LODDS-PAR was the only independent prognosticator out of the LN assessment for primary parotid cancer

Interventions for the treatment of oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancer:chemotherapy

<b>Background:</b> Oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers are frequently described as part of a group of oral cancers or head and neck cancer. Treatment of oral cavity cancer is generally surgery followed by radiotherapy, whereas oropharyngeal cancers, which are more likely to be advanced at the time of diagnosis, are managed with radiotherapy or chemoradiation. Surgery for oral cancers can be disfiguring and both surgery and radiotherapy have significant functional side effects, notably impaired ability to eat, drink and talk. The development of new chemotherapy agents, new combinations of agents and changes in the relative timing of surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy treatments may potentially bring about increases in both survival and quality of life for this group of patients.<p></p> <b>Objectives:</b> To determine whether chemotherapy, in addition to radiotherapy and/or surgery for oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancer results in improved survival, disease free survival, progression free survival, locoregional control and reduced recurrence of disease. To determine which regimen and time of administration (induction, concomitant or adjuvant) is associated with better outcomes.<p></p> <b>Search strategy:</b> Electronic searches of the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED were undertaken on 28th July 2010. Reference lists of recent reviews and included studies were also searched to identify further trials.<p></p> <b>Selection criteria:</b> Randomised controlled trials where more than 50% of participants had primary tumours in the oral cavity or oropharynx, and which compared the addition of chemotherapy to other treatments such as radiotherapy and/or surgery, or compared two or more chemotherapy regimens or modes of administration, were included.<p></p> <b>Data collection and analysis:</b> Trials which met the inclusion criteria were assessed for risk of bias using six domains: sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, completeness of outcome data, selective reporting and other possible sources of bias. Data were extracted using a specially designed form and entered into the characteristics of included studies table and the analysis sections of the review. The proportion of participants in each trial with oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers are recorded in Additional Table 1.<p></p> <b>Main results:</b> There was no statistically significant improvement in overall survival associated with induction chemotherapy compared to locoregional treatment alone in 25 trials (hazard ratio (HR) of mortality 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.00). Post-surgery adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with improved overall survival compared to surgery +/- radiotherapy alone in 10 trials (HR of mortality 0.88, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.99), and there was an additional benefit of adjuvant concomitant chemoradiotherapy compared to radiotherapy in 4 of these trials (HR of mortality 0.84, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.98). Concomitant chemoradiotherapy resulted in improved survival compared to radiotherapy alone in patients whose tumours were considered unresectable in 25 trials (HR of mortality 0.79, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.84). However, the additional toxicity attributable to chemotherapy in the combined regimens remains unquantified.<p></p> <b>Authors' conclusions:</b> Chemotherapy, in addition to radiotherapy and surgery, is associated with improved overall survival in patients with oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers. Induction chemotherapy is associated with a 9% increase in survival and adjuvant concomitant chemoradiotherapy is associated with a 16% increase in overall survival following surgery. In patients with unresectable tumours, concomitant chemoradiotherapy showed a 22% benefit in overall survival compared with radiotherapy alone.<p></p&gt

Interventions for preventing oral mucositis for patients with cancer receiving treatment

Interventions for preventing oral mucositis for patients with cancer receiving treatmentTreatment for cancer (including bone marrow transplant) can cause oral mucositis (severe ulcers in the mouth). This painful condition can cause difficulties in eating, drinking and swallowing, and may also be associated with infections which may require the patient to stay longer in hospital. Different strategies are used to try and prevent this condition, and the review of trials found that some of these are effective. Two interventions, cryotherapy (ice chips) and keratinocyte growth factor (palifermin®) showed some benefit in preventing mucositis. Sucralfate is effective in reducing the severity of mucositis, and a further seven interventions, aloe vera, amifostine, intravenous glutamine, granulocyte‐colony stimulating factor (G‐CSF), honey, laser and antibiotic lozenges containing polymixin/tobramycin/amphotericin (PTA) showed weaker evidence of benefit. These were evaluated in patients with different types of cancer, undergoing different types of cancer treatment. Benefits may be restricted to the disease and treatment combinations evaluated

How to bridge the gap? European medical plants used for treating oral mucositis: on the search for evidence

Purpose!#!Oral mucositis is a common, painful side effect of cancer treatment-be it locoregional (e.g. irradiation) or systemic (e. g. chemotherapy). Phytotherapy is often used by patients to alleviate symptoms. However, knowledge on which medical plants are recommended by literature about Traditional European Medicine (TEM), their effect(s) on symptoms and their efficacy is severely lacking. Therefore, we developed a novel approach to assess traditional knowledge of herbals used in TEM and searched the online databases for studies reporting effects of these plants.!##!Methods!#!At first, online research did not yield a satisfying number of studies (MESH terms: 'mucositis' OR 'stomatitis' AND 'herbal' OR 'herbal medicine'). Trials were labelled by the country conducting the study. In parallel, we compiled a list of 78 plants recommended for treating oral mucositis by screening 14 books on TEM. Then, a 'hit list' of the plants most often mentioned was composed and used further for a second online investigation using the Latin plant designations as MESH term. Studies of both online searches were pooled for analysis.!##!Results!#!There is a gap between traditional knowledge and trials investigating medical plants used by TEM. Overall, herbal remedies alleviate oral mucositis and especially, gingivitis well. There is good evidence for using Matricaria recutita L., Salvia officinalis L., Calendula officinalis L. and Thymus spp. L. for treating oral mucositis.!##!Conclusion!#!Clinical trials investigating medical plants known in TEM are rare. However, following our research strategy, we could extrapolate four plants with good evidence for alleviating symptoms of oral mucositis and gingivitis