4 research outputs found

    The Action Mechanism of the Myc Inhibitor Termed Omomyc May Give Clues on How to Target Myc for Cancer Therapy

    Get PDF
    Recent evidence points to Myc – a multifaceted bHLHZip transcription factor deregulated in the majority of human cancers – as a priority target for therapy. How to target Myc is less clear, given its involvement in a variety of key functions in healthy cells. Here we report on the action mechanism of the Myc interfering molecule termed Omomyc, which demonstrated astounding therapeutic efficacy in transgenic mouse cancer models in vivo. Omomyc action is different from the one that can be obtained by gene knockout or RNA interference, approaches designed to block all functions of a gene product. This molecule – instead – appears to cause an edge-specific perturbation that destroys some protein interactions of the Myc node and keeps others intact, with the result of reshaping the Myc transcriptome. Omomyc selectively targets Myc protein interactions: it binds c- and N-Myc, Max and Miz-1, but does not bind Mad or select HLH proteins. Specifically, it prevents Myc binding to promoter E-boxes and transactivation of target genes while retaining Miz-1 dependent binding to promoters and transrepression. This is accompanied by broad epigenetic changes such as decreased acetylation and increased methylation at H3 lysine 9. In the presence of Omomyc, the Myc interactome is channeled to repression and its activity appears to switch from a pro-oncogenic to a tumor suppressive one. Given the extraordinary therapeutic impact of Omomyc in animal models, these data suggest that successfully targeting Myc for cancer therapy might require a similar twofold action, in order to prevent Myc/Max binding to E-boxes and, at the same time, keep repressing genes that would be repressed by Myc

    Evaluation of an Alimentary Education Intervention on School Canteen Waste at a Primary School in Bari, Italy

    No full text
    The "Love Food, Not Waste" project was conducted to train students on good food choices and evaluate food waste in school canteens. Teachers, parents and students were surveyed before and after training. Weights of both the served and wasted food were recorded for one week both before the educational intervention in February 2019 and after the educational intervention in March 2019, using the same menu. Students completed a food satisfaction questionnaire on the days the data were collected. For the first dish, the mean wastes per school were 1199 g before training and 1054 g after training. For the second dish, the mean wastes per school were 246 g before training and 220 g after training. For the side course, the means wastes per school were 663 g before training and 747 g after training. The results did not significantly differ among weeks or schools. Less food was wasted when boys judged the food's general aspects like smell, taste and appearance as positive; more food was wasted when girls judged these factors as negative. Food waste monitoring is mandatory but does not always occur. Analyzing food waste relative to students' food perceptions can help determine whether educational interventions can help reduce waste. Students' satisfaction must also be considered
    corecore