Effects of Hydrogen Peroxide on In Vitro Cultures of Tea (Camellia sinensis L.) Grown in the Dark and in the Light: Morphology, Content of Malondialdehyde, and Accumulation of Various Polyphenols

Tea plants (Camellia sinensis L.) are phenol-accumulating crops that are widely used for public health. The healing effect of tea leaf products is due to the biosynthesis of such phenolic compounds (PCs) as flavans, which have P-vitamin capillary-strengthening activity. Due to their limited habitat and the value of their specialized metabolites of a phenolic nature, a promising approach is to establish in vitro cultures from them that retain the ability to form PCs, which is characteristic of ex vivo tea plants. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of exogenic H2O2 (0.01 mM; 0.1 mM; 1 mM) on the growth, morphology, degree of stress response, and accumulation of various phenolic compounds in tea plant callus cultures of different ages (24 or 36 days) grown under different cultivation conditions (darkness or light). According to the results obtained, the H2O2 effect on tea callus cultures of different ages did not cause changes in their morphophysiological characteristics, both after 2 h of exposure (rapid response of callus culture, RRCC) and after 48 h (delayed response of callus culture, DRCC). The determination of the malondialdehyde (MDA) content, which serves as an indicator of changes in the level of lipid peroxidation (LPO) and the presence of stress responses in plant cells, indicated either its maintenance at the control level, a decrease, or an increase. All these effects depended on the growth conditions of the tea callus cultures (darkness or light), their age, the duration of exposure (rapid or delayed response), and the H2O2 concentration. Similar trends were noted for the total content of PCs as well as the amount of flavans, proanthocyanidins (soluble and insoluble forms), and lignin. The plant cell responses reflected changes in its adaptation programs, when specialized metabolites act as a target for the action of H2O2, thereby contributing to an increase in their resistance

Rivaroxaban with or without aspirin in stable cardiovascular disease

BACKGROUND: We evaluated whether rivaroxaban alone or in combination with aspirin would be more effective than aspirin alone for secondary cardiovascular prevention. METHODS: In this double-blind trial, we randomly assigned 27,395 participants with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease to receive rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) plus aspirin (100 mg once daily), rivaroxaban (5 mg twice daily), or aspirin (100 mg once daily). The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, stroke, or myocardial infarction. The study was stopped for superiority of the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group after a mean follow-up of 23 months. RESULTS: The primary outcome occurred in fewer patients in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group than in the aspirin-alone group (379 patients [4.1%] vs. 496 patients [5.4%]; hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66 to 0.86; P<0.001; z=−4.126), but major bleeding events occurred in more patients in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group (288 patients [3.1%] vs. 170 patients [1.9%]; hazard ratio, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.40 to 2.05; P<0.001). There was no significant difference in intracranial or fatal bleeding between these two groups. There were 313 deaths (3.4%) in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group as compared with 378 (4.1%) in the aspirin-alone group (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.96; P=0.01; threshold P value for significance, 0.0025). The primary outcome did not occur in significantly fewer patients in the rivaroxaban-alone group than in the aspirin-alone group, but major bleeding events occurred in more patients in the rivaroxaban-alone group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease, those assigned to rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) plus aspirin had better cardiovascular outcomes and more major bleeding events than those assigned to aspirin alone. Rivaroxaban (5 mg twice daily) alone did not result in better cardiovascular outcomes than aspirin alone and resulted in more major bleeding events