Ochratoxin A-induced cytotoxicity in liver (HepG2) cells: Impact of serum concentration, dietary antioxidants and glutathione-modulating compounds

Abbrevations: BSO, buthionine sulfoximine; CAT, catechin; DMSO, dimethyl sulfoxide; DTNB, dithio-bis-nitrobenzoic acid; EGCG, epigallocatechin gallate; FCS, foetal calf serum; GSH, glutathione; IARC, international agency for research on cancer; NAC, N-acetylcysteine; NO, nitric oxide; NR, neutral red; OATP, organic anion-transporting polypeptide; OTA, ochratoxin A; PBS, phosphate buffered saline; QUE, quercetin; ROS, reactive oxygen species; ROSAC, rosmarinic acid; RPMI, roswell park memorial institute; α-TOC, α-tocopherol; α-TOC-P, α-tocopherol phosphat

Association between genetic variants in the Coenzyme Q10 metabolism and Coenzyme Q10 status in humans

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Coenzyme Q₁₀(CoQ₁₀) is essential for mitochondrial energy production and serves as an antioxidants in extra mitochondrial membranes. The genetics of primary CoQ₁₀deficiency has been described in several studies, whereas the influence of common genetic variants on CoQ₁₀status is largely unknown. Here we tested for non-synonymous single-nucleotidepolymorphisms (SNP) in genes involved in the biosynthesis (CoQ3^G272S, CoQ6^M406V, CoQ7^M103T), reduction (NQO1^P187S, NQO2^L47F) and metabolism (apoE3/4) of CoQ₁₀and their association with CoQ₁₀status. For this purpose, CoQ₁₀serum levels of 54 healthy male volunteers were determined before (T₀) and after a 14 days supplementation (T₁₄) with 150 mg/d of the reduced form of CoQ₁₀.</p> <p>Findings</p> <p>At T₀, the CoQ₁₀level of heterozygous NQO1^P187Scarriers were significantly lower than homozygous S/S carriers (0.93 ± 0.25 μM versus 1.34 ± 0.42 μM, p = 0.044). For this polymorphism a structure homology-based method (PolyPhen) revealed a possibly damaging effect on NQO1 protein activity. Furthermore, CoQ₁₀plasma levels were significantly increased in apoE4/E4 genotype after supplementation in comparison to apoE2/E3 genotype (5.93 ± 0.151 μM versus 4.38 ± 0.792 μM, p = 0.034). Likewise heterozygous CoQ3^G272Scarriers had higher CoQ₁₀plasma levels at T₁₄compared to G/G carriers but this difference did not reach significance (5.30 ± 0.96 μM versus 4.42 ± 1.67 μM, p = 0.082).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>In conclusion, our pilot study provides evidence that NQO1^P187Sand apoE polymorphisms influence CoQ₁₀status in humans.</p

Age, gender, and cancer but not neurodegenerative and cardiovascular diseases strongly modulate systemic effect of the Apolipoprotein E4 allele on lifespan

Enduring interest in the Apolipoprotein E (ApoE) polymorphism is ensured by its evolutionary-driven uniqueness in humans and its prominent role in geriatrics and gerontology. We use large samples of longitudinally followed populations from the Framingham Heart Study (FHS) original and offspring cohorts and the Long Life Family Study (LLFS) to investigate gender-specific effects of the ApoE4 allele on human survival in a wide range of ages from midlife to extreme old ages, and the sensitivity of these effects to cardiovascular disease (CVD), cancer, and neurodegenerative disorders (ND). The analyses show that women's lifespan is more sensitive to the e4 allele than men's in all these populations. A highly significant adverse effect of the e4 allele is limited to women with moderate lifespan of about 70 to 95 years in two FHS cohorts and the LLFS with relative risk of death RR = 1.48 (p = 3.6×10(−6)) in the FHS cohorts. Major human diseases including CVD, ND, and cancer, whose risks can be sensitive to the e4 allele, do not mediate the association of this allele with lifespan in large FHS samples. Non-skin cancer non-additively increases mortality of the FHS women with moderate lifespans increasing the risks of death of the e4 carriers with cancer two-fold compared to the non-e4 carriers, i.e., RR = 2.07 (p = 5.0×10(−7)). The results suggest a pivotal role of non-sex-specific cancer as a nonlinear modulator of survival in this sample that increases the risk of death of the ApoE4 carriers by 150% (p = 5.3×10(−8)) compared to the non-carriers. This risk explains the 4.2 year shorter life expectancy of the e4 carriers compared to the non-carriers in this sample. The analyses suggest the existence of age- and gender-sensitive systemic mechanisms linking the e4 allele to lifespan which can non-additively interfere with cancer-related mechanisms