Myxobacteria versus sponge-derived alkaloids: the bengamide family identified as potent immune modulating agents by scrutiny of LC-MS/ELSD libraries.

A nuclear factor-κB (NF-κB) luciferase assay has been employed to identify the bengamides, previously known for their anti-tumor activity, as a new class of immune modulators. A unique element of this study was that the bengamide analogs were isolated from two disparate sources, Myxococcus virescens (bacterium) and Jaspis coriacea (sponge). Comparative LC-MS/ELSD and NMR analysis facilitated the isolation of M. viriscens derived samples of bengamide E (8) and two congeners, bengamide E\u27 (13) and F\u27 (14) each isolated as an insperable mixture of diastereomers. Additional compounds drawn from the UC, Santa Cruz repository allowed expansion of the structure activity relationship (SAR) studies. The activity patterns observed for bengamide A (6), B (7), E (8), F (9), LAF 389 (12) and 13-14 gave rise to the following observations and conclusions. Compounds 6 and 7 display potent inhibition of NF-κB (at 80 and 90 nM, respectively) without cytotoxicity to RAW264.7 macrophage immune cells. Western blot and qPCR analysis indicated that 6 and 7 reduce the phosphorylation of IκBα and the LPS-induced expression of the pro-inflammatory cytokines/chemokines TNFα, IL-6 and MCP-1 but do not effect NO production or the expression of iNOS. These results suggest that the bengamides may serve as therapeutic leads for the treatment of diseases involving inflammation, that their anti-tumor activity can in part be attributed to their ability to serve as immune modulating agents, and that their therapeutic potential against cancer merits further consideration

The Safety of Genetically Modified Foods Produced through Biotechnology

The Society of Toxicology (SOT) is committed to protecting and enhancing human, animal, and environmental health through the sound application of the fundamental principles of the science of toxicology. It is with this goal in mind that the SOT defines here its current consensus position on the safety of foods produced through biotechnology (genetic engineering). These products are commonly termed genetically modified foods, but this is misleading, since conventional methods of microbial, crop, and animal improvement also produce genetic modifications and these are not addressed here. The available scientific evidence indicates that the potential adverse health effects arising from biotechnology-derived foods are not different in nature from those created by conventional breeding practices for plant, animal, or microbial enhancement, and are already familiar to toxicologists. It is therefore important to recognize that the food product itself, rather than the process through which it is made, should be the focus of attention in assessing safety. We support the use of the substantial equivalence concept as part of the safety assessment of biotechnology-derived foods. This process establishes whether the new plant or animal is significantly different from comparable, nonengineered plants or animals used to produce food that is generally considered to be safe for consumers. It provides critical guidance as to the nature of any increased health hazards in the new food. To establish substantial equivalence, extensive comparative studies of the chemical composition, nutritional quality, and levels of potentially toxic components, in both the engineered and conventional crop and animal, are conducted. Notable differences between the existing and new organism would require further evaluation to determine whether the engineered form presents a higher level of risk. Through this approach, the safety of current biotechnology-derived foods can be compared with that of their conventional counterparts, using established and accepted methods of analytical, nutritional, and toxicological research. Studies of this type have established that the level of safety to consumers of current genetically engineered foods is likely to be equivalent to that of traditional foods. At present, no verifiable evidence of adverse health effects of BD foods has been reported, although the current passive reporting system probably would not detect minor or rare adverse effects or a moderate increase in effects with a high background incidence such as diarrhea. The changes in the composition of existing foods produced through biotechnology are quite limited. Assessing safety may be more difficult in the future if genetic engineering projects cause more substantial and complex changes in a foodstuff. Methods have not yet been developed with which whole foods (in contrast to single chemical components) can be fully evaluated for safety. Progress also needs to be made in developing definitive methods for the identification and characterization of proteins that are potential allergens, and this is currently a major focus of research. Improved methods of profiling plant and microbial metabolites, proteins and gene expression may be helpful in detecting unexpected changes in BD organisms and in establishing substantial equivalence. A continuing evolution of toxicological methodologies and regulatory strategies will be necessary to ensure that the present level of safety of biotechnology-derived foods is maintained in the future