Phytoremediation of heavy metal-contaminated sites: Eco-environmental concerns, field studies, sustainability issues and future prospects

Environmental contamination due to heavy metals (HMs) is of serious ecotoxicological concern worldwide because of their increasing use at industries. Due to non-biodegradable and persistent nature, HMs cause serious soil/water pollution and severe health hazards in living beings upon exposure. HMs can be genotoxic, carcinogenic, mutagenic, and teratogenic in nature even at low concentration. They may also act as endocrine disruptors and induce developmental as well as neurological disorders and thus, their removal from our natural environment is crucial for the rehabilitation of contaminated sites. To cope with HM pollution, phytoremediation has emerged as a low-cost and eco-sustainable solution to conventional physico-chemical cleanup methods that require high capital investment and labor alter soil properties and disturb soil microflora. Phytoremediation is a green technology wherein plants and associated microbes are used to remediate HM-contaminated sites to safeguard the environment and protect public health. Hence, in view of the above, the present paper aims to examine the feasibility of phytoremediation as a sustainable remediation technology for the management of metals-contaminated sites. Therefore, this paper provides an in-depth review on both the conventional and novel phytoremediation approaches, evaluate their efficacy to remove toxic metals from our natural environment, explore current scientific progresses, field experiences and sustainability issues and revise world over trends in phytoremediation research for its wider recognition and public acceptance as a sustainable remediation technology for the management of contaminated sites in 21st century

TGF-beta in neural stem cells and in tumors of the central nervous system

Mechanisms that regulate neural stem cell activity in the adult brain are tightly coordinated. They provide new neurons and glia in regions associated with high cellular and functional plasticity, after injury, or during neurodegeneration. Because of the proliferative and plastic potential of neural stem cells, they are currently thought to escape their physiological control mechanisms and transform to cancer stem cells. Signals provided by proteins of the transforming growth factor (TGF)-beta family might represent a system by which neural stem cells are controlled under physiological conditions but released from this control after transformation to cancer stem cells. TGF-beta is a multifunctional cytokine involved in various physiological and patho-physiological processes of the brain. It is induced in the adult brain after injury or hypoxia and during neurodegeneration when it modulates and dampens inflammatory responses. After injury, although TGF-beta is neuroprotective, it may limit the self-repair of the brain by inhibiting neural stem cell proliferation. Similar to its effect on neural stem cells, TGF-beta reveals anti-proliferative control on most cell types; however, paradoxically, many brain tumors escape from TGF-beta control. Moreover, brain tumors develop mechanisms that change the anti-proliferative influence of TGF-beta into oncogenic cues, mainly by orchestrating a multitude of TGF-beta-mediated effects upon matrix, migration and invasion, angiogenesis, and, most importantly, immune escape mechanisms. Thus, TGF-beta is involved in tumor progression. This review focuses on TGF-beta and its role in the regulation and control of neural and of brain-cancer stem cells

Edoxaban versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation

Contains fulltext : 125374.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: Edoxaban is a direct oral factor Xa inhibitor with proven antithrombotic effects. The long-term efficacy and safety of edoxaban as compared with warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation is not known. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy trial comparing two once-daily regimens of edoxaban with warfarin in 21,105 patients with moderate-to-high-risk atrial fibrillation (median follow-up, 2.8 years). The primary efficacy end point was stroke or systemic embolism. Each edoxaban regimen was tested for noninferiority to warfarin during the treatment period. The principal safety end point was major bleeding. RESULTS: The annualized rate of the primary end point during treatment was 1.50% with warfarin (median time in the therapeutic range, 68.4%), as compared with 1.18% with high-dose edoxaban (hazard ratio, 0.79; 97.5% confidence interval [CI], 0.63 to 0.99; P<0.001 for noninferiority) and 1.61% with low-dose edoxaban (hazard ratio, 1.07; 97.5% CI, 0.87 to 1.31; P=0.005 for noninferiority). In the intention-to-treat analysis, there was a trend favoring high-dose edoxaban versus warfarin (hazard ratio, 0.87; 97.5% CI, 0.73 to 1.04; P=0.08) and an unfavorable trend with low-dose edoxaban versus warfarin (hazard ratio, 1.13; 97.5% CI, 0.96 to 1.34; P=0.10). The annualized rate of major bleeding was 3.43% with warfarin versus 2.75% with high-dose edoxaban (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.91; P<0.001) and 1.61% with low-dose edoxaban (hazard ratio, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.55; P<0.001). The corresponding annualized rates of death from cardiovascular causes were 3.17% versus 2.74% (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.77 to 0.97; P=0.01), and 2.71% (hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.76 to 0.96; P=0.008), and the corresponding rates of the key secondary end point (a composite of stroke, systemic embolism, or death from cardiovascular causes) were 4.43% versus 3.85% (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.78 to 0.96; P=0.005), and 4.23% (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.05; P=0.32). CONCLUSIONS: Both once-daily regimens of edoxaban were noninferior to warfarin with respect to the prevention of stroke or systemic embolism and were associated with significantly lower rates of bleeding and death from cardiovascular causes. (Funded by Daiichi Sankyo Pharma Development; ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00781391.)