VARIABLES INFLUENCING DRUG RELEASE PATTERN OF MICROSPHERES: A TECHNICAL REVIEW

Purpose of writing this review on microspheres was to compile the recent literature with special focus on the various variables which affect the drug release pattern of microspheres. There are various approaches in delivering a therapeutic substance to the target site in a controlled release fashion. One such approach is using microspheres as a carrier for drugs. For success of microspheres as drug delivery system, it’s necessary they release the drug in controlled release manner for longer duration. This can be made possible by optimizing the formulation as well as process variables. Therefore before designing the microspheres formulation, it’s necessary to understand the effect of various variables on the drug release pattern of these microspheres. The intent of the paper is providing the deep understanding of various variables those are useful during the development of microspheres system. This paper also summarize the various relevant aspects of microsphere

Tumor Suppressor Protein p53 Recruits Human Sin3B/HDAC1 Complex for Down-Regulation of Its Target Promoters in Response to Genotoxic Stress

Master regulator protein p53, popularly known as the “guardian of genome” is the hub for regulation of diverse cellular pathways. Depending on the cell type and severity of DNA damage, p53 protein mediates cell cycle arrest or apoptosis, besides activating DNA repair, which is apparently achieved by regulation of its target genes, as well as direct interaction with other proteins. p53 is known to repress target genes via multiple mechanisms one of which is via recruitment of chromatin remodelling Sin3/HDAC1/2 complex. Sin3 proteins (Sin3A and Sin3B) regulate gene expression at the chromatin-level by serving as an anchor onto which the core Sin3/HDAC complex is assembled. The Sin3/HDAC co-repressor complex can be recruited by a large number of DNA-binding transcription factors. Sin3A has been closely linked to p53 while Sin3B is considered to be a close associate of E2Fs. The theme of this study was to establish the role of Sin3B in p53-mediated gene repression. We demonstrate a direct protein-protein interaction between human p53 and Sin3B (hSin3B). Amino acids 1–399 of hSin3B protein are involved in its interaction with N-terminal region (amino acids 1–108) of p53. Genotoxic stress induced by Adriamycin treatment increases the levels of hSin3B that is recruited to the promoters of p53-target genes (HSPA8, MAD1 and CRYZ). More importantly recruitment of hSin3B and repression of the three p53-target promoters upon Adriamycin treatment were observed only in p53+/+ cell lines. Additionally an increased tri-methylation of the H3K9 residue at the promoters of HSPA8 and CRYZ was also observed following Adriamycin treatment. The present study highlights for the first time the essential role of Sin3B as an important associate of p53 in mediating the cellular responses to stress and in the transcriptional repression of genes encoding for heat shock proteins or proteins involved in regulation of cell cycle and apoptosis

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)1.

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field