Versatile Functions of Heat Shock Factors: It is Not All About Stress

Organisms are constantly exposed to acute and chronic stress conditions, which challenge the maintenance of protein homeostasis. Heat ShockProteins (HSPs) function as molecular chaperones to stabilize protein structures, facilitate refolding of misfolded proteins, and prevent uncontrolled protein aggregation. Therefore, HSPs serve as the first and last line ofdefense in the events of proteotoxic stresses. The stress-inducible expression of HSPs, which is a hallmark of the heat shock response, is understrict control of evolutionary conserved transcription factors, known as Heat Shock Factors (HSFs). Invertebrates have only a single HSF, whereas the HSF family in vertebrates consists of multiple members. Direct interactions of HSFs with various proteins, including HSPs, chromatin-associated proteins, and other HSF family members as well as their complex post-translational modifications, allow these transcription factors to function not only in stress responses but also in many other biological processes. For example, mammalian HSF1, HSF2 and HSF4 are fundamental for normal organismal development and healthy aging. Moreover, recent discoveries have highlighted the importance of HSFs in tumorigenesis, neurodegeneration, and metabolic disorders, which positions them as promising therapeutic targets in multiple human diseases. In this review, we focus on recent advances in the HSF biology and discuss the functional impact of HSFs on stress responses, development, aging, and age-related pathologies.</div

Natural Substances, Probiotics, and Synthetic Agents in the Treatment and Prevention of Honeybee Nosemosis

Honeybees are important pollinators, but they are continuously exposed to a variety of fungal and bacterial diseases. One of the various diseases affecting honeybees is nosemosis caused by microsporidia from the Nosema genus. Honeybees are mainly infected through consumption of infected food or faeces containing Nosema spp. spores. Nosemosis causes damage to the middle intestine epithelium, which leads to food absorption disorders and honeybee malnutrition. Fumagillin, i.e., the antibiotic used to treat nosemosis, was withdrawn in 2016 from EU countries. Therefore, researchers have been looking for compounds of both natural and synthetic origin to fight nosemosis. Such compounds should not have a negative impact on bees but is expected to inhibit the disease. Natural compounds tested against nosemosis include, e.g., essential oils (EOs), plant extracts, propolis, and bacterial metabolites, while synthetic substances tested as anti-nosemosis agents are represented by porphyrins, vitamins, antibiotics, phenolic, ascorbic acids, and others. This publication presents an 18-year overview of various studies of a number of natural and synthetic compounds used in the treatment and prevention of nosemosis cited in PubMed, GoogleScholar, and CrossRef

Effects of hospital facilities on patient outcomes after cancer surgery: an international, prospective, observational study

© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 licenseBackground: Early death after cancer surgery is higher in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) compared with in high-income countries, yet the impact of facility characteristics on early postoperative outcomes is unknown. The aim of this study was to examine the association between hospital infrastructure, resource availability, and processes on early outcomes after cancer surgery worldwide. Methods: A multimethods analysis was performed as part of the GlobalSurg 3 study—a multicentre, international, prospective cohort study of patients who had surgery for breast, colorectal, or gastric cancer. The primary outcomes were 30-day mortality and 30-day major complication rates. Potentially beneficial hospital facilities were identified by variable selection to select those associated with 30-day mortality. Adjusted outcomes were determined using generalised estimating equations to account for patient characteristics and country-income group, with population stratification by hospital. Findings: Between April 1, 2018, and April 23, 2019, facility-level data were collected for 9685 patients across 238 hospitals in 66 countries (91 hospitals in 20 high-income countries; 57 hospitals in 19 upper-middle-income countries; and 90 hospitals in 27 low-income to lower-middle-income countries). The availability of five hospital facilities was inversely associated with mortality: ultrasound, CT scanner, critical care unit, opioid analgesia, and oncologist. After adjustment for case-mix and country income group, hospitals with three or fewer of these facilities (62 hospitals, 1294 patients) had higher mortality compared with those with four or five (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 3·85 [95% CI 2·58–5·75]; p<0·0001), with excess mortality predominantly explained by a limited capacity to rescue following the development of major complications (63·0% vs 82·7%; OR 0·35 [0·23–0·53]; p<0·0001). Across LMICs, improvements in hospital facilities would prevent one to three deaths for every 100 patients undergoing surgery for cancer. Interpretation: Hospitals with higher levels of infrastructure and resources have better outcomes after cancer surgery, independent of country income. Without urgent strengthening of hospital infrastructure and resources, the reductions in cancer-associated mortality associated with improved access will not be realised. Funding: National Institute for Health and Care Research