Micro- and nanoplastics current status: legislation, gaps, limitations and socio-economic prospects for future

The pollution caused by micro- (MP) and nanoplastics (NP) in the planet’s ecosystems has gained significant interest in recent years due to their environmental impact and effects on the health of living organisms. Given this, it is necessary to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the actions required to mitigate their impacts. This paper analyzes existing legislation across different countries and regions, including Europe, North America, China, Russia, India, Brazil, Mexico, and the global initiatives undertaken by the United Nations. Furthermore, it highlights the need for additional measures to mitigate the impact of MP/NP in future years, such as the development of technologies for the separation or degradation of these particles in water intended for human consumption and in wastewater treatment plant effluents, studying plastic particulate material in the air considering meteorological parameters, MP/NP detection protocols in human fluid samples, creating truly biodegradable polymers for use as bioplastics, and establishing institutions responsible for the management of plastic waste. The study also shows the current state of abundance (characterization and quantification) of MP/NP in different environmental matrices based on reports from recent years, and identifies key research opportunities and actions required to evaluate the risks and toxicity associated with MP/NP. Socio-economic aspects are considered, including the impact of MP/NP on different regions, by associating economic and human wellness parameters to plastic waste generation by using available data from 148 countries. As result of this analysis, both the most populated and developed countries contribute to MP/NP generation, however, they have different capacities to address this problem due to social circumstances. The solution to this problem requires efforts from authorities, industry, the scientific community, and the active participation of the population, then, resolving social, political, and economic issues between countries and regions of the world is necessary

Significant role of the truncated Ghrelin Receptor GHS-1Rb in Ghrelin-induced signaling in neurons

The truncated non-signaling ghrelin receptor GHS-R1b has been suggested to simply exert a dominant negative role in the trafficking and signaling of the full and functional ghrelin receptor GHS-R1a. Here we reveal a more complex modulatory role of GHS-R1b. Differential co-expression of GHS-R1a and GHS-R1b, both in HEK-293T cells and in striatal and hippocampal neurons in culture, demonstrates that GHS-R1b acts as a dual modulator of GHS-R1a function: low relative GHS-R1b expression potentiates and high relative GHS-R1b expression inhibits GHS-R1a function by facilitating GHS-R1a trafficking to the plasma membrane and by exerting a negative allosteric effect on GHS-R1a signaling, respectively. We found a preferential Gi/o-coupling of the GHS-R1a-GHS-R1b complex in HEK-293T cells and, unexpectedly, a preferential Gs/olf coupling in both striatal and hippocampal neurons in culture. A dopamine D1 receptor (D1R) antagonist blocked ghrelin-induced cAMP accumulation in striatal but not hippocampal neurons, indicating the involvement of D1R in the striatal GHS-R1a-Gs/olf coupling. Experiments in HEK-293T demonstrated that D1R co-expression promotes a switch in GHS-R1a-G protein coupling, from Gi/o to Gs/olf, but only upon co-expression of GHS-R1b. Furthermore, resonance energy transfer experiments showed that D1R interacts with GHS-R1a, but only in the presence of GHS-R1b. Therefore, GHS-R1b not only determines the efficacy of ghrelin-induced GHS-R1a-mediated signaling, but also determines the ability of GHS-R1a to form oligomeric complexes with other receptors promoting profound qualitative changes in ghrelin-induced signaling

Assessment of Physicochemical Properties of Tequila Brands: Authentication and Quality

Several physicochemical properties were measured in commercial tequila brands: conductivity, density, pH, sound velocity, viscosity, and refractive index. Physicochemical data were analyzed by Principal Component Analysis (PCA), cluster analysis, and the one-way analysis of variance to identify the quality and authenticity of tequila brands. According to the Principal Component Analysis, the existence of 3 main components was identified, explaining the 87.76% of the total variability of physicochemical measurements. In general, all tequila brands appeared together in the plane of the first two principal components. In the cluster analysis, four groups showing similar characteristics were identified. In particular, one of the clusters contains some tequila brands that are not identified by the Regulatory Council of Tequila and do not meet the quality requirements established in the Mexican Official Standard 006. These tequila brands are characterized by having higher conductivity and density and lower viscosity and refractive index, determined by one-way analysis of variance. Therefore, these economical measurements, PCA, and cluster analysis can be used to determinate the authenticity of a tequila brand

Significant Role of the Truncated Ghrelin Receptor GHS-1Rb in Ghrelin-Induced Signaling in Neurons

The truncated non-signaling ghrelin receptor GHS-R1b has been suggested to simply exert a dominant negative role in the trafficking and signaling of the full and functional ghrelin receptor GHS-R1a. Here we reveal a more complex modulatory role of GHS-R1b. Differential co-expression of GHS-R1a and GHS-R1b, both in HEK-293T cells and in striatal and hippocampal neurons in culture, demonstrates that GHS-R1b acts as a dual modulator of GHS-R1a function: low relative GHS-R1b expression potentiates and high relative GHS-R1b expression inhibits GHS-R1a function by facilitating GHS-R1a trafficking to the plasma membrane and by exerting a negative allosteric effect on GHS-R1a signaling, respectively. We found a preferential Gi/o-coupling of the GHS-R1a-GHS-R1b complex in HEK-293T cells and, unexpectedly, a preferential Gs/olf coupling in both striatal and hippocampal neurons in culture. A dopamine D1 receptor (D1R) antagonist blocked ghrelin-induced cAMP accumulation in striatal but not hippocampal neurons, indicating the involvement of D1R in the striatal GHS-R1a-Gs/olf coupling. Experiments in HEK-293T demonstrated that D1R co-expression promotes a switch in GHS-R1a-G protein coupling, from Gi/o to Gs/olf, but only upon co-expression of GHS-R1b. Furthermore, resonance energy transfer experiments showed that D1R interacts with GHS-R1a, but only in the presence of GHS-R1b. Therefore, GHS-R1b not only determines the efficacy of ghrelin-induced GHS-R1a-mediated signaling, but also determines the ability of GHS-R1a to form oligomeric complexes with other receptors promoting profound qualitative changes in ghrelin-induced signaling

Significant Role of the Truncated Ghrelin Receptor GHS-1Rb in Ghrelin-Induced Signaling in Neurons

The truncated non-signaling ghrelin receptor GHS-R1b has been suggested to simply exert a dominant negative role in the trafficking and signaling of the full and functional ghrelin receptor GHS-R1a. Here we reveal a more complex modulatory role of GHS-R1b. Differential co-expression of GHS-R1a and GHS-R1b, both in HEK-293T cells and in striatal and hippocampal neurons in culture, demonstrates that GHS-R1b acts as a dual modulator of GHS-R1a function: low relative GHS-R1b expression potentiates and high relative GHS-R1b expression inhibits GHS-R1a function by facilitating GHS-R1a trafficking to the plasma membrane and by exerting a negative allosteric effect on GHS-R1a signaling, respectively. We found a preferential Gi/o-coupling of the GHS-R1a-GHS-R1b complex in HEK-293T cells and, unexpectedly, a preferential Gs/olf coupling in both striatal and hippocampal neurons in culture. A dopamine D1 receptor (D1R) antagonist blocked ghrelin-induced cAMP accumulation in striatal but not hippocampal neurons, indicating the involvement of D1R in the striatal GHS-R1a-Gs/olf coupling. Experiments in HEK-293T demonstrated that D1R co-expression promotes a switch in GHS-R1a-G protein coupling, from Gi/o to Gs/olf, but only upon co-expression of GHS-R1b. Furthermore, resonance energy transfer experiments showed that D1R interacts with GHS-R1a, but only in the presence of GHS-R1b. Therefore, GHS-R1b not only determines the efficacy of ghrelin-induced GHS-R1a-mediated signaling, but also determines the ability of GHS-R1a to form oligomeric complexes with other receptors promoting profound qualitative changes in ghrelin-induced signaling

Efficacy and safety of sparsentan versus irbesartan in patients with IgA nephropathy (PROTECT): 2-year results from a randomised, active-controlled, phase 3 trial

BackgroundSparsentan, a novel, non-immunosuppressive, single-molecule, dual endothelin angiotensin receptor antagonist, significantly reduced proteinuria versus irbesartan, an angiotensin II receptor blocker, at 36 weeks (primary endpoint) in patients with immunoglobulin A nephropathy in the phase 3 PROTECT trial's previously reported interim analysis. Here, we report kidney function and outcomes over 110 weeks from the double-blind final analysis.MethodsPROTECT, a double-blind, randomised, active-controlled, phase 3 study, was done across 134 clinical practice sites in 18 countries throughout the Americas, Asia, and Europe. Patients aged 18 years or older with biopsy-proven primary IgA nephropathy and proteinuria of at least 1·0 g per day despite maximised renin–angiotensin system inhibition for at least 12 weeks were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive sparsentan (target dose 400 mg oral sparsentan once daily) or irbesartan (target dose 300 mg oral irbesartan once daily) based on a permuted-block randomisation method. The primary endpoint was proteinuria change between treatment groups at 36 weeks. Secondary endpoints included rate of change (slope) of the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), changes in proteinuria, a composite of kidney failure (confirmed 40% eGFR reduction, end-stage kidney disease, or all-cause mortality), and safety and tolerability up to 110 weeks from randomisation. Secondary efficacy outcomes were assessed in the full analysis set and safety was assessed in the safety set, both of which were defined as all patients who were randomly assigned and received at least one dose of randomly assigned study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03762850.FindingsBetween Dec 20, 2018, and May 26, 2021, 203 patients were randomly assigned to the sparsentan group and 203 to the irbesartan group. One patient from each group did not receive the study drug and was excluded from the efficacy and safety analyses (282 [70%] of 404 included patients were male and 272 [67%] were White) . Patients in the sparsentan group had a slower rate of eGFR decline than those in the irbesartan group. eGFR chronic 2-year slope (weeks 6–110) was −2·7 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year versus −3·8 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year (difference 1·1 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year, 95% CI 0·1 to 2·1; p=0·037); total 2-year slope (day 1–week 110) was −2·9 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year versus −3·9 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year (difference 1·0 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year, 95% CI −0·03 to 1·94; p=0·058). The significant reduction in proteinuria at 36 weeks with sparsentan was maintained throughout the study period; at 110 weeks, proteinuria, as determined by the change from baseline in urine protein-to-creatinine ratio, was 40% lower in the sparsentan group than in the irbesartan group (−42·8%, 95% CI −49·8 to −35·0, with sparsentan versus −4·4%, −15·8 to 8·7, with irbesartan; geometric least-squares mean ratio 0·60, 95% CI 0·50 to 0·72). The composite kidney failure endpoint was reached by 18 (9%) of 202 patients in the sparsentan group versus 26 (13%) of 202 patients in the irbesartan group (relative risk 0·7, 95% CI 0·4 to 1·2). Treatment-emergent adverse events were well balanced between sparsentan and irbesartan, with no new safety signals.InterpretationOver 110 weeks, treatment with sparsentan versus maximally titrated irbesartan in patients with IgA nephropathy resulted in significant reductions in proteinuria and preservation of kidney function

Sparsentan in patients with IgA nephropathy: a prespecified interim analysis from a randomised, double-blind, active-controlled clinical trial

Background: Sparsentan is a novel, non-immunosuppressive, single-molecule, dual endothelin and angiotensin receptor antagonist being examined in an ongoing phase 3 trial in adults with IgA nephropathy. We report the prespecified interim analysis of the primary proteinuria efficacy endpoint, and safety. Methods: PROTECT is an international, randomised, double-blind, active-controlled study, being conducted in 134 clinical practice sites in 18 countries. The study examines sparsentan versus irbesartan in adults (aged ≥18 years) with biopsy-proven IgA nephropathy and proteinuria of 1·0 g/day or higher despite maximised renin-angiotensin system inhibitor treatment for at least 12 weeks. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive sparsentan 400 mg once daily or irbesartan 300 mg once daily, stratified by estimated glomerular filtration rate at screening (30 to 1·75 g/day). The primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline to week 36 in urine protein-creatinine ratio based on a 24-h urine sample, assessed using mixed model repeated measures. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were safety endpoints. All endpoints were examined in all participants who received at least one dose of randomised treatment. The study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03762850. Findings: Between Dec 20, 2018, and May 26, 2021, 404 participants were randomly assigned to sparsentan (n=202) or irbesartan (n=202) and received treatment. At week 36, the geometric least squares mean percent change from baseline in urine protein-creatinine ratio was statistically significantly greater in the sparsentan group (-49·8%) than the irbesartan group (-15·1%), resulting in a between-group relative reduction of 41% (least squares mean ratio=0·59; 95% CI 0·51-0·69; p<0·0001). TEAEs with sparsentan were similar to irbesartan. There were no cases of severe oedema, heart failure, hepatotoxicity, or oedema-related discontinuations. Bodyweight changes from baseline were not different between the sparsentan and irbesartan groups. Interpretation: Once-daily treatment with sparsentan produced meaningful reduction in proteinuria compared with irbesartan in adults with IgA nephropathy. Safety of sparsentan was similar to irbesartan. Future analyses after completion of the 2-year double-blind period will show whether these beneficial effects translate into a long-term nephroprotective potential of sparsentan. Funding: Travere Therapeutics

Efficacy and safety of sparsentan versus irbesartan in patients with IgA nephropathy (PROTECT): 2-year results from a randomised, active-controlled, phase 3 trial

Background Sparsentan, a novel, non-immunosuppressive, single-molecule, dual endothelin angiotensin receptor antagonist, significantly reduced proteinuria versus irbesartan, an angiotensin II receptor blocker, at 36 weeks (primary endpoint) in patients with immunoglobulin A nephropathy in the phase 3 PROTECT trial's previously reported interim analysis. Here, we report kidney function and outcomes over 110 weeks from the double-blind final analysis. Methods PROTECT, a double-blind, randomised, active-controlled, phase 3 study, was done across 134 clinical practice sites in 18 countries throughout the Americas, Asia, and Europe. Patients aged 18 years or older with biopsy-proven primary IgA nephropathy and proteinuria of at least 1·0 g per day despite maximised renin–angiotensin system inhibition for at least 12 weeks were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive sparsentan (target dose 400 mg oral sparsentan once daily) or irbesartan (target dose 300 mg oral irbesartan once daily) based on a permuted-block randomisation method. The primary endpoint was proteinuria change between treatment groups at 36 weeks. Secondary endpoints included rate of change (slope) of the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), changes in proteinuria, a composite of kidney failure (confirmed 40% eGFR reduction, end-stage kidney disease, or all-cause mortality), and safety and tolerability up to 110 weeks from randomisation. Secondary efficacy outcomes were assessed in the full analysis set and safety was assessed in the safety set, both of which were defined as all patients who were randomly assigned and received at least one dose of randomly assigned study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03762850. Findings Between Dec 20, 2018, and May 26, 2021, 203 patients were randomly assigned to the sparsentan group and 203 to the irbesartan group. One patient from each group did not receive the study drug and was excluded from the efficacy and safety analyses (282 [70%] of 404 included patients were male and 272 [67%] were White) . Patients in the sparsentan group had a slower rate of eGFR decline than those in the irbesartan group. eGFR chronic 2-year slope (weeks 6–110) was −2·7 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year versus −3·8 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year (difference 1·1 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year, 95% CI 0·1 to 2·1; p=0·037); total 2-year slope (day 1–week 110) was −2·9 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year versus −3·9 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year (difference 1·0 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year, 95% CI −0·03 to 1·94; p=0·058). The significant reduction in proteinuria at 36 weeks with sparsentan was maintained throughout the study period; at 110 weeks, proteinuria, as determined by the change from baseline in urine protein-to-creatinine ratio, was 40% lower in the sparsentan group than in the irbesartan group (−42·8%, 95% CI −49·8 to −35·0, with sparsentan versus −4·4%, −15·8 to 8·7, with irbesartan; geometric least-squares mean ratio 0·60, 95% CI 0·50 to 0·72). The composite kidney failure endpoint was reached by 18 (9%) of 202 patients in the sparsentan group versus 26 (13%) of 202 patients in the irbesartan group (relative risk 0·7, 95% CI 0·4 to 1·2). Treatment-emergent adverse events were well balanced between sparsentan and irbesartan, with no new safety signals. Interpretation Over 110 weeks, treatment with sparsentan versus maximally titrated irbesartan in patients with IgA nephropathy resulted in significant reductions in proteinuria and preservation of kidney function.</p