Reduction of hepatotoxicity of nimesulide in mechanochemically obtained composition with disodium salt of glycyrrhizic acid

Nimesulide (NIM) is a nonsteroid anti-inflammatory drug which acts as a selective cyclooxygenase 2 inhibitor and is widely used for acute pain treatment. In medical practice, a large amount of data has been collected describing the effect of NIM on the body, while a hepatotoxic side effect of the drug has been found. The exact mechanisms of such NIM-induced hepatotoxicity largely remain unknown but likely involve the intermediate reaction of its metabolism. Reduction of the hepatotoxic side effect of NIM is an actual problem for pharmacology. The aim of the present research was to evaluate the hepatotoxicity of the mechanochemically obtained composition of NIM with glycyrrhizic acid disodium salt (Na2GA) compared to pure NIM and a physical mixture of NIM with Na2GA. Material and methods. CD-1 mice were orally administered for 14 days: 1 group – mechanochemical composition NIM/Na2GA (1:10, m/m) at a dose of 1650 mg/kg; 2 group – physical mixture of NIM with Na2GA (1:10, m/m) at a dose of 1650 mg/kg; 3 group – pure NIM at a dose of 600 mg/kg (which pharmacokinetically corresponds to 1650 mg/kg of NIM/Na2GA); 4 group – vehicle (distilled water). The liver damage was assessed using histological studies and enzymatic activity of the alanine aminotransferase and aspartate aminotransferase in blood serum. Results. Histological analysis did not detect any changes in the liver of NIM/Na2GA-treated animals in comparison with a water-treated group. On the opposite, NIM given alone or as a physical mixture with Na2GA induced severe hepatotoxicity in experimental mice. Biochemical analysis of the blood serum revealed that mechanochemical NIM/Na2GA composition significantly reduced activity of the alanine aminotransferase (about 1.5 times) and aspartate aminotransferase (1.3 times) as compared with the pure NIM. Conclusions. The results obtained indicate a high potential for the practical application of the NIM/Na2GA mechanochemical composition

Adaptation students who study on the first course of pharmaceutical faculty to student life

This article presents the results of a questionnaire survey of students who study on the first course of the pharmaceutical faculty of USMA. The purpose of the study was to find out whether students are satisfied with the quality and methods of teaching, identify the existing problems of adaptation of first-year students.В данной статье приведены результаты анкетирования обучающихся на 1 курсе фармацевтического факультета УГМУ. Целью исследования было выяснить, довольны ли студенты качеством и методами обучения, выявить существующие проблемы адаптации студентов-первокурсников

Taming the terminological tempest in invasion science

\ua9 2024 The Authors. Biological Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Cambridge Philosophical Society. Standardised terminology in science is important for clarity of interpretation and communication. In invasion science – a dynamic and rapidly evolving discipline – the proliferation of technical terminology has lacked a standardised framework for its development. The result is a convoluted and inconsistent usage of terminology, with various discrepancies in descriptions of damage and interventions. A standardised framework is therefore needed for a clear, universally applicable, and consistent terminology to promote more effective communication across researchers, stakeholders, and policymakers. Inconsistencies in terminology stem from the exponential increase in scientific publications on the patterns and processes of biological invasions authored by experts from various disciplines and countries since the 1990s, as well as publications by legislators and policymakers focusing on practical applications, regulations, and management of resources. Aligning and standardising terminology across stakeholders remains a challenge in invasion science. Here, we review and evaluate the multiple terms used in invasion science (e.g. ‘non-native’, ‘alien’, ‘invasive’ or ‘invader’, ‘exotic’, ‘non-indigenous’, ‘naturalised’, ‘pest’) to propose a more simplified and standardised terminology. The streamlined framework we propose and translate into 28 other languages is based on the terms (i) ‘non-native’, denoting species transported beyond their natural biogeographic range, (ii) ‘established non-native’, i.e. those non-native species that have established self-sustaining populations in their new location(s) in the wild, and (iii) ‘invasive non-native’ – populations of established non-native species that have recently spread or are spreading rapidly in their invaded range actively or passively with or without human mediation. We also highlight the importance of conceptualising ‘spread’ for classifying invasiveness and ‘impact’ for management. Finally, we propose a protocol for classifying populations based on (i) dispersal mechanism, (ii) species origin, (iii) population status, and (iv) impact. Collectively and without introducing new terminology, the framework that we present aims to facilitate effective communication and collaboration in invasion science and management of non-native species

Taming the terminological tempest in invasion science

Standardized terminology in science is important for clarity of interpretation and communication. In invasion science — a dynamic and quickly evolving discipline — the rapid proliferation of technical terminology has lacked a standardized framework for its language development. The result is a convoluted and inconsistent usage of terminology, with various discrepancies in descriptions of damages and interventions. A standardized framework is therefore needed for a clear, universally applicable, and consistent terminology to promote more effective communication across researchers, stakeholders, and policymakers. Inconsistencies in terminology stem from the exponential increase in scientific publications on the patterns and processes of biological invasions authored by experts from various disciplines and countries since the 1990s, as well as publications by legislators and policymakers focusing on practical applications, regulations, and management of resources. Aligning and standardizing terminology across stakeholders remains a prevailing challenge in invasion science. Here, we review and evaluate the multiple terms used in invasion science (e.g. 'non-native', 'alien', 'invasive' or 'invader', 'exotic', 'non-indigenous', 'naturalized, 'pest') to propose a more simplified and standardized terminology. The streamlined framework we propose and translate into 28 other languages is based on the terms (i) 'non-native', denoting species transported beyond their natural biogeographic range, (ii) 'established non-native', i.e. those non-native species that have established self-sustaining populations in their new location(s) in the wild, and (iii) 'invasive non-native' — populations of established non-native species that have recently spread or are spreading rapidly in their invaded range actively or passively with or without human mediation. We also highlight the importance of conceptualizing 'spread' for classifying invasiveness and 'impact' for management. Finally, we propose a protocol for classifying populations based on (1) dispersal mechanism, (2) species origin, (3) population status, and (4) impact. Collectively and without introducing new terminology, the framework that we present aims to facilitate effective communication and collaboration in invasion science and management of non-native species

Taming the terminological tempest in invasion science

Standardised terminology in science is important for clarity of interpretation and communication. In invasion science – a dynamic and rapidly evolving discipline – the proliferation of technical terminology has lacked a standardised framework for its development. The result is a convoluted and inconsistent usage of terminology, with various discrepancies in descriptions of damage and interventions. A standardised framework is therefore needed for a clear, universally applicable, and consistent terminology to promote more effective communication across researchers, stakeholders, and policymakers. Inconsistencies in terminology stem from the exponential increase in scientific publications on the patterns and processes of biological invasions authored by experts from various disciplines and countries since the 1990s, as well as publications by legislators and policymakers focusing on practical applications, regulations, and management of resources. Aligning and standardising terminology across stakeholders remains a challenge in invasion science. Here, we review and evaluate the multiple terms used in invasion science (e.g. ‘non-native’, ‘alien’, ‘invasive’ or ‘invader’, ‘exotic’, ‘non-indigenous’, ‘naturalised’, ‘pest’) to propose a more simplified and standardised terminology. The streamlined framework we propose and translate into 28 other languages is based on the terms (i) ‘non-native’, denoting species transported beyond their natural biogeographic range, (ii) ‘established non-native’, i.e. those non-native species that have established self-sustaining populations in their new location(s) in the wild, and (iii) ‘invasive non-native’ – populations of established non-native species that have recently spread or are spreading rapidly in their invaded range actively or passively with or without human mediation. We also highlight the importance of conceptualising ‘spread’ for classifying invasiveness and ‘impact’ for management. Finally, we propose a protocol for classifying populations based on (i) dispersal mechanism, (ii) species origin, (iii) population status, and (iv) impact. Collectively and without introducing new terminology, the framework that we present aims to facilitate effective communication and collaboration in invasion science and management of non-native species

Xylophagous beetles (Coleoptera) in the zones of Gomilshanski lisy National Nature Park with different management regime

The purpose of the research was to assess the species composition and biodiversity indices for xylophagous beetles collected by window traps in the parts of Gomilshanski lisy National Nature Park with different management regimes and anthropogenic load. Four window traps were placed in each of the five groups of sample plots: clear felling, selective felling, stationary recreation, regulated recreation and protected zone. The data were analysed using the statistical software package PAST, particularly, the Menhinick index (DMn) and dominance index (D) were evaluated and classical clustering (unweighted pair-group average [UPGMA]) was performed. A total of 42 species of xylophages (9903 individuals) were collected from Curculionidae (Scolytinae and Cossoninae), Cerambycidae, Histeridae, Bostrichidae, Buprestidae and Lymexilidae. The highest species richness was in the plots of clear and selective felling (25 and 22 species, respectively) and the lowest was in the protected zone (16 species), regulated recreation (19 species) and stationary recreation (22 species). The Menhinick index (DMn) was the lowest in the protected zone (0.27), increased in the zone of regulated recreation (0.43) and stationary recreation (0.45) and was maximal in the plots of selective and clear felling (0.69 and 0.77, respectively). The number of individuals was maximal in the protected zone and minimal at the plots of selective and clear felling. All sites were dominated by Xyleborinus saxesenii (Ratzeburg, 1837) (66–85% individuals) and Anisandrus dispar (Fabricius, 1792) (8.5–20.7% individuals). Minimal dominance (0.49) was found in the plot of clear felling. Cluster analysis showed similarity of the xylophage complex in the plots of clear and selective felling, as well as in the zone of stationary and regulated recreation, which differed from the protected zone