Cancer-selective, single agent chemoradiosensitising gold nanoparticles

Two nanometre gold nanoparticles (AuNPs), bearing sugar moieties and/or thiol-polyethylene glycol-amine (PEG-amine), were synthesised and evaluated for their in vitro toxicity and ability to radiosensitise cells with 220 kV and 6 MV X-rays, using four cell lines representing normal and cancerous skin and breast tissues. Acute 3 h exposure of cells to AuNPs, bearing PEG-amine only or a 50:50 ratio of alpha-galactose derivative and PEG-amine resulted in selective uptake and toxicity towards cancer cells at unprecedentedly low nanomolar concentrations. Chemotoxicity was prevented by co-administration of N-acetyl cysteine antioxidant, or partially prevented by the caspase inhibitor Z-VAD-FMK. In addition to their intrinsic cancer-selective chemotoxicity, these AuNPs acted as radiosensitisers in combination with 220 kV or 6 MV X-rays. The ability of AuNPs bearing simple ligands to act as cancer-selective chemoradiosensitisers at low concentrations is a novel discovery that holds great promise in developing low-cost cancer nanotherapeutics

Rhodium(II)-catalyzed stereocontrolled synthesis of dihydrofuran-3-imines from 1-Tosyl-1,2,3-triazoles

Rhodium(II) acetate catalyzes the denitrogenative transformation of 5-substituted and 4,5-disubstituted 1-sulfonyl-1,2,3-triazoles with pendent allyl and propargyl ether motifs to oxonium ylides that undergo [2,3]-sigmatropic rearrangement to give substituted dihydrofuran-3-imines in high yield and diastereoselectivity

The Normative Problem of Merit Goods in Perspective

In his Theory of Public Finance (1959), Musgrave invented the concept of merit wants to describe public wants that are satisfied by goods provided by the government in violation of the principle of consumer sovereignty. Starting from Musgrave’s mature discussion (1987), I construct two categories to classify the explanations of merit goods. The first strand of thought attempts to justify merit goods within the New welfare economics, by modifying its assumptions to accommodate irrationality, uncertainty, lack of information, and psychic externalities. The second category encompasses more radical departures from consumer sovereignty, drawn from philosophical critiques of economics. In the third part of the paper, I argue that the two strands might be represented by a non-individualistic social welfare function. I also show how this solution echoes Musgrave’s early views on public expenditures before he coined the concept of merit wants. From an historical perspective, the survival of the concept highlights the persistence of a social point of view in welfare economics

Merit Goods

International audienc