The Role of Autophagy and lncRNAs in the Maintenance of Cancer Stem Cells

Cancer stem cells (CSCs) possess properties such as self-renewal, resistance to apoptotic cues, quiescence, and DNA-damage repair capacity. Moreover, CSCs strongly influence the tumour microenvironment (TME) and may account for cancer progression, recurrence, and relapse. CSCs represent a distinct subpopulation in tumours and the detection, characterisation, and understanding of the regulatory landscape and cellular processes that govern their maintenance may pave the way to improving prognosis, selective targeted therapy, and therapy outcomes. In this review, we have discussed the characteristics of CSCs identified in various cancer types and the role of autophagy and long noncoding RNAs (lncRNAs) in maintaining the homeostasis of CSCs. Further, we have discussed methods to detect CSCs and strategies for treatment and relapse, taking into account the requirement to inhibit CSC growth and survival within the complex backdrop of cellular processes, microenvironmental interactions, and regulatory networks associated with cancer. Finally, we critique the computationally reinforced triangle of factors inclusive of CSC properties, the process of autophagy, and lncRNA and their associated networks with respect to hypoxia, epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT), and signalling pathways

The Contribution of Autophagy and LncRNAs to MYC-Driven Gene Regulatory Networks in Cancers

MYC is a target of the Wnt signalling pathway and governs numerous cellular and developmental programmes hijacked in cancers. The amplification of MYC is a frequently occurring genetic alteration in cancer genomes, and this transcription factor is implicated in metabolic reprogramming, cell death, and angiogenesis in cancers. In this review, we analyse MYC gene networks in solid cancers. We investigate the interaction of MYC with long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs). Furthermore, we investigate the role of MYC regulatory networks in inducing changes to cellular processes, including autophagy and mitophagy. Finally, we review the interaction and mutual regulation between MYC and lncRNAs, and autophagic processes and analyse these networks as unexplored areas of targeting and manipulation for therapeutic gain in MYC-driven malignancies

Effects of tranexamic acid on death, disability, vascular occlusive events and other morbidities in patients with acute traumatic brain injury (CRASH-3): a randomised, placebo-controlled trial

Background Tranexamic acid reduces surgical bleeding and decreases mortality in patients with traumatic extracranial bleeding. Intracranial bleeding is common after traumatic brain injury (TBI) and can cause brain herniation and death. We aimed to assess the effects of tranexamic acid in patients with TBI. Methods This randomised, placebo-controlled trial was done in 175 hospitals in 29 countries. Adults with TBI who were within 3 h of injury, had a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score of 12 or lower or any intracranial bleeding on CT scan, and no major extracranial bleeding were eligible. The time window for eligibility was originally 8 h but in 2016 the protocol was changed to limit recruitment to patients within 3 h of injury. This change was made blind to the trial data, in response to external evidence suggesting that delayed treatment is unlikely to be effective. We randomly assigned (1:1) patients to receive tranexamic acid (loading dose 1 g over 10 min then infusion of 1 g over 8 h) or matching placebo. Patients were assigned by selecting a numbered treatment pack from a box containing eight packs that were identical apart from the pack number. Patients, caregivers, and those assessing outcomes were masked to allocation. The primary outcome was head injury-related death in hospital within 28 days of injury in patients treated within 3 h of injury. We prespecified a sensitivity analysis that excluded patients with a GCS score of 3 and those with bilateral unreactive pupils at baseline. All analyses were done by intention to treat. This trial was registered with ISRCTN (ISRCTN15088122), ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01402882), EudraCT (2011-003669-14), and the Pan African Clinical Trial Registry (PACTR20121000441277). Results Between July 20, 2012, and Jan 31, 2019, we randomly allocated 12 737 patients with TBI to receive tranexamic acid (6406 [50·3%] or placebo [6331 [49·7%], of whom 9202 (72·2%) patients were treated within 3 h of injury. Among patients treated within 3 h of injury, the risk of head injury-related death was 18·5% in the tranexamic acid group versus 19·8% in the placebo group (855 vs 892 events; risk ratio [RR] 0·94 [95% CI 0·86-1·02]). In the prespecified sensitivity analysis that excluded patients with a GCS score of 3 or bilateral unreactive pupils at baseline, the risk of head injury-related death was 12·5% in the tranexamic acid group versus 14·0% in the placebo group (485 vs 525 events; RR 0·89 [95% CI 0·80-1·00]). The risk of head injury-related death reduced with tranexamic acid in patients with mild-to-moderate head injury (RR 0·78 [95% CI 0·64-0·95]) but not in patients with severe head injury (0·99 [95% CI 0·91-1·07]; p value for heterogeneity 0·030). Early treatment was more effective than was later treatment in patients with mild and moderate head injury (p=0·005) but time to treatment had no obvious effect in patients with severe head injury (p=0·73). The risk of vascular occlusive events was similar in the tranexamic acid and placebo groups (RR 0·98 (0·74-1·28). The risk of seizures was also similar between groups (1·09 [95% CI 0·90-1·33]). Interpretation Our results show that tranexamic acid is safe in patients with TBI and that treatment within 3 h of injury reduces head injury-related death. Patients should be treated as soon as possible after injury. Funding National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment, JP Moulton Charitable Trust, Department of Health and Social Care, Department for International Development, Global Challenges Research Fund, Medical Research Council, and Wellcome Trust (Joint Global Health Trials scheme)

Safety and immunogenicity of the two-dose heterologous Ad26.ZEBOV and MVA-BN-Filo Ebola vaccine regimen in children in Sierra Leone: a randomised, double-blind, controlled trial

Background—Children account for a substantial proportion of cases and deaths from Ebola virus disease. We aimed to assess the safety and immunogenicity of a two-dose heterologous vaccine regimen, comprising the adenovirus type 26 vector-based vaccine encoding the Ebola virus glycoprotein (Ad26.ZEBOV) and the modified vaccinia Ankara vectorbased vaccine, encoding glycoproteins from the Ebola virus, Sudan virus, and Marburg virus, and the nucleoprotein from the Tai Forest virus (MVA-BN-Filo), in a paediatric population in Sierra Leone. Methods—This randomised, double-blind, controlled trial was done at three clinics in Kambia district, Sierra Leone. Healthy children and adolescents aged 1–17 years were enrolled in three age cohorts (12–17 years, 4–11 years, and 1–3 years) and randomly assigned (3:1), via computer-generated block randomisation (block size of eight), to receive an intramuscular injection of either Ad26.ZEBOV (5 × 1010 viral particles; first dose) followed by MVA-BN-Filo (1 × 108 infectious units; second dose) on day 57 (Ebola vaccine group), or a single dose of meningococcal quadrivalent (serogroups A, C, W135, and Y) conjugate vaccine (MenACWY; first dose) followed by placebo (second dose) on day 57 (control group). Study team personnel (except for those with primary responsibility for study vaccine preparation), participants, and their parents or guardians were masked to study vaccine allocation. The primary outcome was safety, measured as the occurrence of solicited local and systemic adverse symptoms during 7 days after each vaccination, unsolicited systemic adverse events during 28 days after each vaccination, abnormal laboratory results during the study period, and serious adverse events or immediate reportable events throughout the study period. The secondary outcome was immunogenicity (humoral immune response), measured as the concentration of Ebola virus glycoprotein-specific binding antibodies at 21 days after the second dose. The primary outcome was assessed in all participants who had received at least one dose of study vaccine and had available reactogenicity data, and immunogenicity was assessed in all participants who had received both vaccinations within the protocol-defined time window, had at least one evaluable post-vaccination sample, and had no major protocol deviations that could have influenced the immune response. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02509494. Findings—From April 4, 2017, to July 5, 2018, 576 eligible children or adolescents (192 in each of the three age cohorts) were enrolled and randomly assigned. The most common solicited local adverse event during the 7 days after the first and second dose was injection-site pain in all age groups, with frequencies ranging from 0% (none of 48) of children aged 1–3 years after placebo injection to 21% (30 of 144) of children aged 4–11 years after Ad26.ZEBOV vaccination. The most frequently observed solicited systemic adverse event during the 7 days was headache in the 12–17 years and 4–11 years age cohorts after the first and second dose, and pyrexia in the 1–3 years age cohort after the first and second dose. The most frequent unsolicited adverse event after the first and second dose vaccinations was malaria in all age cohorts, irrespective of the vaccine types. Following vaccination with MenACWY, severe thrombocytopaenia was observed in one participant aged 3 years. No other clinically significant laboratory abnormalities were observed in other study participants, and no serious adverse events related to the Ebola vaccine regimen were reported. There were no treatment-related deaths. Ebola virus glycoprotein-specific binding antibody responses at 21 days after the second dose of the Ebola virus vaccine regimen were observed in 131 (98%) of 134 children aged 12–17 years (9929 ELISA units [EU]/mL [95% CI 8172–12 064]), in 119 (99%) of 120 aged 4–11 years (10 212 EU/mL [8419–12 388]), and in 118 (98%) of 121 aged 1–3 years (22 568 EU/mL [18 426–27 642]). Interpretation—The Ad26.ZEBOV and MVA-BN-Filo Ebola vaccine regimen was well tolerated with no safety concerns in children aged 1–17 years, and induced robust humoral immune responses, suggesting suitability of this regimen for Ebola virus disease prophylaxis in children

Safety and long-term immunogenicity of the two-dose heterologous Ad26.ZEBOV and MVA-BN-Filo Ebola vaccine regimen in adults in Sierra Leone: a combined open-label, non-randomised stage 1, and a randomised, double-blind, controlled stage 2 trial

Background The Ebola epidemics in west Africa and the Democratic Republic of the Congo highlight an urgent need for safe and effective vaccines to prevent Ebola virus disease. We aimed to assess the safety and long-term immunogenicity of a two-dose heterologous vaccine regimen, comprising the adenovirus type 26 vector-based vaccine encoding the Ebola virus glycoprotein (Ad26.ZEBOV) and the modified vaccinia Ankara vector-based vaccine, encoding glycoproteins from Ebola virus, Sudan virus, and Marburg virus, and the nucleoprotein from the Tai Forest virus (MVA-BN-Filo), in Sierra Leone, a country previously affected by Ebola. Methods The trial comprised two stages: an open-label, non-randomised stage 1, and a randomised, double-blind, controlled stage 2. The study was done at three clinics in Kambia district, Sierra Leone. In stage 1, healthy adults (aged ≥18 years) residing in or near Kambia district, received an intramuscular injection of Ad26.ZEBOV (5×1010 viral particles) on day 1 (first dose) followed by an intramuscular injection of MVA-BN-Filo (1×108 infectious units) on day 57 (second dose). An Ad26.ZEBOV booster vaccination was offered at 2 years after the first dose to stage 1 participants. The eligibility criteria for adult participants in stage 2 were consistent with stage 1 eligibility criteria. Stage 2 participants were randomly assigned (3:1), by computer-generated block randomisation (block size of eight) via an interactive web-response system, to receive either the Ebola vaccine regimen (Ad26.ZEBOV followed by MVA-BN-Filo) or an intramuscular injection of a single dose of meningococcal quadrivalent (serogroups A, C, W135, and Y) conjugate vaccine (MenACWY; first dose) followed by placebo on day 57 (second dose; control group). Study team personnel, except those with primary responsibility for study vaccine preparation, and participants were masked to study vaccine allocation. The primary outcome was the safety of the Ad26.ZEBOV and MVA-BN-Filo vaccine regimen, which was assessed in all participants who had received at least one dose of study vaccine. Safety was assessed as solicited local and systemic adverse events occurring in the first 7 days after each vaccination, unsolicited adverse events occurring in the first 28 days after each vaccination, and serious adverse events or immediate reportable events occurring up to each participant’s last study visit. Secondary outcomes were to assess Ebola virus glycoprotein-specific binding antibody responses at 21 days after the second vaccine in a per-protocol set of participants (ie, those who had received both vaccinations within the protocol-defined time window, had at least one evaluable post-vaccination sample, and had no major protocol deviations that could have influenced the immune response) and to assess the safety and tolerability of the Ad26.ZEBOV booster vaccination in stage 1 participants who had received the booster dose. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02509494. Findings Between Sept 30, 2015, and Oct 19, 2016, 443 participants (43 in stage 1 and 400 in stage 2) were enrolled; 341 participants assigned to receive the Ad26.ZEBOV and MVA-BN-Filo regimen and 102 participants assigned to receive the MenACWY and placebo regimen received at least one dose of study vaccine. Both regimens were well tolerated with no safety concerns. In stage 1, solicited local adverse events (mostly mild or moderate injection-site pain) were reported in 12 (28%) of 43 participants after Ad26.ZEBOV vaccination and in six (14%) participants after MVA-BN-Filo vaccination. In stage 2, solicited local adverse events were reported in 51 (17%) of 298 participants after Ad26.ZEBOV vaccination, in 58 (24%) of 246 after MVA-BN-Filo vaccination, in 17 (17%) of 102 after MenACWY vaccination, and in eight (9%) of 86 after placebo injection. In stage 1, solicited systemic adverse events were reported in 18 (42%) of 43 participants after Ad26.ZEBOV vaccination and in 17 (40%) after MVA-BN-Filo vaccination. In stage 2, solicited systemic adverse events were reported in 161 (54%) of 298 participants after Ad26.ZEBOV vaccination, in 107 (43%) of 246 after MVA-BN-Filo vaccination, in 51 (50%) of 102 after MenACWY vaccination, and in 39 (45%) of 86 after placebo injection. Solicited systemic adverse events in both stage 1 and 2 participants included mostly mild or moderate headache, myalgia, fatigue, and arthralgia. The most frequent unsolicited adverse event after the first dose was headache in stage 1 and malaria in stage 2. Malaria was the most frequent unsolicited adverse event after the second dose in both stage 1 and 2. No serious adverse event was considered related to the study vaccine, and no immediate reportable events were observed. In stage 1, the safety profile after the booster vaccination was not notably different to that observed after the first dose. Vaccine-induced humoral immune responses were observed in 41 (98%) of 42 stage 1 participants (geometric mean binding antibody concentration 4784 ELISA units [EU]/mL [95% CI 3736–6125]) and in 176 (98%) of 179 stage 2 participants (3810 EU/mL [3312–4383]) at 21 days after the second vaccination. Interpretation The Ad26.ZEBOV and MVA-BN-Filo vaccine regimen was well tolerated and immunogenic, with persistent humoral immune responses. These data support the use of this vaccine regimen for Ebola virus disease prophylaxis in adults

Relatório de estágio em farmácia comunitária

Relatório de estágio realizado no âmbito do Mestrado Integrado em Ciências Farmacêuticas, apresentado à Faculdade de Farmácia da Universidade de Coimbr

Ameliorative effect of the hydroethanolic whole plant extract of Digitaria horizontalis (Poaceae) against haloperidol-induced catalepsy in mice

Background: Digitaria horizontalis is used in Traditional African Medicine in the management of nervous disorders.Objective: This study was carried out to investigate the protective effect of hydroethanolic whole plant extract of D. horizontalis 1 against haloperidol-induced catalepsy in mice.Methods: Male albino mice (17-21 g) randomly divided into six groups (n=6); (1) normal saline, vehicle control (10 ml/kg), (2) vehicle positive control, (3) trihexylphenidyl (0.5 mg/kg, i.p.), (4-6) DH (12.5, 50 or 100 mg/kg), 1 h posttreatment haloperidol (1 mg/kg, i.p.) for 14 consecutive days. The neurobehavioral effect of the extract was evaluated using the bar, open field, elevated plus maze, forced swim and climbing tests. At the end of the study, biochemical markers of nitrosative and oxidative stress status were determined.Results: DH (12.5, 50 and 100 mg/kg) significantly ameliorated haloperidol-induced catalepsy (bar test), spontaneous motor and working memory deficits (open field and elevated plus maze tests, respectively), depressive-like behavior and motor coordination deficits (forced swim and climbing tests, respectively) compared to vehicle-treated control. Haloperidol injection increased level of lipid peroxidation and deficits in the level of antioxidant enzymes which was attenuated by pretreatment of mice with DH. To corroborate these findings, DH scavenged 1-1-diphenyl-2-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH), nitric oxide and ferric ion induced free radicals in vitro.Conclusion: Findings from this study suggests that the hydroethanolic whole plant extract of D. horizontalis possesses antioxidant, neuroprotective, nootropic andantidepressant-like properties. Thus, could be a potential phytotherapeutic in the management of drug-induced Parkinsonism.Keywords: Digitaria horizontalis; neuroprotective; haloperidol; nootropic; catalepsy; antioxidant