Superoxide dismutase analog (Tempol: 4-hydroxy-2, 2, 6, 6-tetramethylpiperidine 1-oxyl) treatment restores erectile function in diabetes-induced impotence.

We hypothesized that the administration of the superoxide dismutase (SOD) mimetic Tempol (4-hydroxy-2, 2, 6, 6-tetramethylpiperidine 1-oxyl) may reverse diabetes-induced erectile dysfunction. To test this hypothesis, reactive oxygen species-related genes (SOD1, SOD2, GP x 1, CAT, NOS2, NOS3) were tested, erectile functional studies and immunohistochemical analysis were carried out in diabetic rats treated with or without Tempol. Thirty Sprague-Dawley (3-4 months old) rats were divided into three groups (n=10 each), 20 with diabetes (diabetic control and Tempol treatment) and 10 healthy controls. At 12 weeks after the induction of diabetes by streptozotocin and Tempol treatment, all groups underwent in vivo cavernous nerve stimulation. Rat crura were harvested and the expression of antioxidative defense enzymes were examined by semi-quantitative reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR). To confirm the RT-PCR results, we carried out immunohistochemistry (IHC) for catalase (CAT) and iNOS (NOS2). Nitration of tyrosine groups in proteins was also examined by IHC. Mean intracavernous pressure in the diabetic group was significantly lower than in the healthy controls (P <0.001) and was reversed by Tempol treatment (P <0.0108). NOS2 protein expression was significantly increased in diabetic animals compared with healthy controls and Tempol restored NOS2 protein level. Nitrotyrosine was also higher in diabetic animals and although Tempol treatment decreased its formation, it remained higher than that found in healthy controls. This study suggests that Tempol treatment increased erectile function through modulating oxidative stress-related genes in diabetic rats. This is the first report about the relationship between diabetes-induced erectile dysfunction and oxidative stress, and antioxidative therapy using the superoxide dismutase mimetic, Tempol, to restore erectile function

Impact of hormonal therapy on the detection of promoter hypermethylation of the detoxifying glutathione-S-transferase P1 gene (GSTP1) in prostate cancer

BACKGROUND: In spite of excellent cure rates for prostate cancer patients with favorable tumor characteristics, patients with unfavorable characteristics after radical prostatectomy are still at a significantly increased risk of tumor progression. Early adjuvant hormonal therapy (AHT) has been shown to be of prognostic benefit in these patients. Unfortunately initiation and duration of early AHT in the individual patient is based on statistic data. PSA, as the standard prostate marker is neither able to reliably indicate minimal residual tumor disease in the early postoperative phase, nor can it be used for therapy monitoring due to the suppressive effect of hormonal therapy on PSA production. Promoter hypermethylation of the detoxifying glutathione-S-transferase P1 gene (GSTP1-HM) has been shown to be the most common DNA alteration of primary prostatic carcinoma which, when used as a marker, is supposed to be able to overcome some of the disadvantages of PSA. However until now information on the impact of hormonal therapy on the detection of GSTP1-HM is lacking. The purpose of our study was to assess the impact of endocrine therapy on the detection of GSTP1-HM by methylation-specific PCR (MSP) in prostate cancer. METHODS: Paraffin embedded tumor samples from the radical prostatectomy (RP) specimens from 15 patients after hormonal therapy (HT) (mean 8 months) were assessed by MSP. In 8 of the patients the GSTP-1 status of the tumors before HT was assessed on the corresponding initial diagnostic biopsies. RESULTS: Following HT MSP showed GSTP1-HM in 13/15 of the RP specimens. In two patients analysis of the RP specimens failed to show GSTP1-HM. All initial tumor samples (8/8 biopsy specimens) showed GSTP1-HM, including both patients negative for GSTP1 HM in the corresponding RP specimen. CONCLUSION: In most cases hormonal therapy appears to not alter GSTP1 HM detection. However the change from a positive to a negative GSTP1 HM status in a subset of the patients may point to an, at least partial androgen dependency. Further studies on a larger cohort of patients are necessary to assess its frequency and the exact hormonal interactions

Control of prostate cancer associated with withdrawal of a supplement containing folic acid, L-methyltetrahydrofolate and vitamin B12: a case report

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Introduction</p> <p>This is the first report of possible direct stimulation of hormone-resistant prostate cancer or interference of docetaxel cytotoxicity of prostate cancer in a patient with biochemical relapse of prostatic-specific antigen. This observation is of clinical and metabolic importance, especially at a time when more than 80 countries have fortified food supplies with folic acid and some contemplate further fortification with vitamin B₁₂.</p> <p>Case presentation</p> <p>Our patient is a 71-year-old Caucasian man who had been diagnosed in 1997 with prostate cancer, stage T1c, and Gleason score 3+4 = 7. His primary treatment included intermittent androgen deprivation therapy including leuprolide + bicalutamide + deutasteride, ketoconazole + hydrocortisone, nilandrone and flutamide to resistance defined as biochemical relapse of PSA. While undergoing docetaxel therapy to treat a continually increasing prostate-specific antigen level, withdrawal of 10 daily doses of a supplement containing 500 μg of vitamin B₁₂as cyanocobalamin, as well as 400 μg of folic acid as pteroylglutamic acid and 400 μg of L-5-methyltetrahydrofolate for a combined total of 800 μg of mixed folates, was associated with a return to a normal serum prostatic-specific antigen level.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>This case report illustrates the importance of the effects of supplements containing large amounts of folic acid, L-5-methyltetrahydrofolate, and cyanocobalamin on the metabolism of prostate cancer cells directly and/or B vitamin interference with docetaxel efficacy. Physicians caring for patients with prostate cancer undergoing watchful waiting, hormone therapy, and/or chemotherapy should consider the possible acceleration of tumor growth and/or metastasis and the development of drug resistance associated with supplement ingestion. We describe several pathways of metabolic and epigenetic interactions that could affect the observed changes in serum levels of prostate-specific antigen.</p

Quantitative promoter methylation analysis of multiple cancer-related genes in renal cell tumors

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Aberrant promoter hypermethylation of cancer-associated genes occurs frequently during carcinogenesis and may serve as a cancer biomarker. In this study we aimed at defining a quantitative gene promoter methylation panel that might identify the most prevalent types of renal cell tumors.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A panel of 18 gene promoters was assessed by quantitative methylation-specific PCR (QMSP) in 85 primarily resected renal tumors representing the four major histologic subtypes (52 clear cell (ccRCC), 13 papillary (pRCC), 10 chromophobe (chRCC), and 10 oncocytomas) and 62 paired normal tissue samples. After genomic DNA isolation and sodium bisulfite modification, methylation levels were determined and correlated with standard clinicopathological parameters.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Significant differences in methylation levels among the four subtypes of renal tumors were found for <it>CDH1 </it>(<it>p </it>= 0.0007), <it>PTGS2 </it>(<it>p </it>= 0.002), and <it>RASSF1A </it>(<it>p </it>= 0.0001). <it>CDH1 </it>hypermethylation levels were significantly higher in ccRCC compared to chRCC and oncocytoma (<it>p </it>= 0.00016 and <it>p </it>= 0.0034, respectively), whereas <it>PTGS2 </it>methylation levels were significantly higher in ccRCC compared to pRCC (<it>p </it>= 0.004). <it>RASSF1A </it>methylation levels were significantly higher in pRCC than in normal tissue (<it>p </it>= 0.035). In pRCC, <it>CDH1 </it>and <it>RASSF1A </it>methylation levels were inversely correlated with tumor stage (<it>p </it>= 0.031) and nuclear grade (<it>p </it>= 0.022), respectively.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The major subtypes of renal epithelial neoplasms display differential aberrant <it>CDH1</it>, <it>PTGS2</it>, and <it>RASSF1A </it>promoter methylation levels. This gene panel might contribute to a more accurate discrimination among common renal tumors, improving preoperative assessment and therapeutic decision-making in patients harboring suspicious renal masses.</p

Co-expression of CD147 (EMMPRIN), CD44v3-10, MDR1 and monocarboxylate transporters is associated with prostate cancer drug resistance and progression

Background: The aim of this study is to seek an association between markers of metastatic potential, drug resistance-related protein and monocarboxylate transporters in prostate cancer (CaP). Methods: We evaluated the expression of invasive markers (CD147, CD44v3-10), drug-resistance protein (MDR1) and monocarboxylate transporters (MCT1 and MCT4) in CaP metastatic cell lines and CaP tissue microarrays (n=140) by immunostaining. The co-expression of CD147 and CD44v3-10 with that of MDR1, MCT1 and MCT4 in CaP cell lines was evaluated using confocal microscopy. The relationship between the expression of CD147 and CD44v3-10 and the sensitivity (IC50) to docetaxel in CaP cell lines was assessed using MTT assay. The relationship between expression of CD44v3-10, MDR1 and MCT4 and various clinicopathological CaP progression parameters was examined. Results: CD147 and CD44v3-10 were co-expressed with MDR1, MCT1 and MCT4 in primary and metastatic CaP cells. Both CD147 and CD44v3-10 expression levels were inversely related to docetaxel sensitivity (IC50) in metastatic CaP cell lines. Overexpression of CD44v3-10, MDR1 and MCT4 was found in most primary CaP tissues, and was significantly associated with CaP progression. Conclusions: Our results suggest that the overexpression of CD147, CD44v3-10, MDR1 and MCT4 is associated with CaP progression. Expression of both CD147 and CD44v3-10 is correlated with drug resistance during CaP metastasis and could be a useful potential therapeutic target in advanced disease

Locomotion disorders and skin and claw lesions in gestating sows housed in dynamic versus static groups

Lameness and lesions to the skin and claws of sows in group housing are commonly occurring indicators of reduced welfare. Typically, these problems are more common in group housing than in individual housing systems. Group management type (dynamic versus static) and stage of gestation influence the behavior of the animals, which in turn influences the occurrence of these problems. The present study compared prevalence, incidence and mean scores of lameness and skin and claw lesions in static versus dynamic group housed sows at different stages of gestation during three consecutive reproductive cycles. A total of 10 Belgian sow herds were monitored; 5 in which dynamic groups and 5 in which static groups were utilized. All sows were visually assessed for lameness and skin lesions three times per cycle and the claws of the hind limbs were assessed once per cycle. Lameness and claw lesions were assessed using visual analogue scales. Static groups, in comparison with dynamic groups, demonstrated lower lameness scores (P<0.05) and decreased skin lesion prevalence (24.9 vs. 47.3%, P<0.05) at the end of gestation. There was no difference between treatment group regarding claw lesion prevalence with 75.5% of sows demonstrating claw lesions regardless of group management. Prevalences of lameness (22.4 vs. 8.9%, P<0.05) and skin lesions (46.6 vs. 4.4%, P<0.05) were highest during the group-housed phase compared to the individually housed phases. Although the prevalence of lameness and skin lesions did not differ three days after grouping versus at the end of the group-housing phase, their incidence peaked during the first three days after moving from the insemination stalls to the group. In conclusion, the first three days after grouping was the most risky period for lameness incidence, but there was no significant difference between static or dynamic group management