MS-275 synergistically enhances the growth inhibitory effects of RAMBA VN/66-1 in hormone-insensitive PC-3 prostate cancer cells and tumours

Combining drugs, which target different signalling pathways, often decreases adverse side effects while increasing the efficacy of treatment. The objective of our study was to determine if the combination of our novel atypical retinoic acid metabolism-blocking agent (RAMBA) VN/66-1 and a promising histone deacetylase inhibitor N-(2-aminophenyl)4-[N-(pyridine-3-yl-methoxy-carbonyl)aminomethyl]benzamide (MS-275) would show enhanced antineoplastic activity on human PC-3 prostate cancer cells/tumours and also to decipher the molecular mechanisms of action. The combination of VN/66-1+MS-275 was found to be synergistic in inhibiting PC-3 cell growth, caused cell cytostaticity/cytotoxicity and induced marked G2/M phase arrest and apoptosis. In mice with well-established PC-3 tumours, VN/66-1 (5 and 10 mg kg−1 day−1) caused significant suppression of tumour growth compared with mice receiving vehicle alone. Furthermore, treatment with VN/66-1 (10 mg kg−1 day−1)+MS-275 (2.5 mg kg−1 day−1) for 18 days resulted in an 85% reduction in final mean tumour volume compared with control and was more effective than either agent alone. Mechanistic studies indicated that treatment of PC-3 cells/tumours with VN/66-1+MS-275 caused DNA damage (upregulation of γH2AX), hyperacetylation of histones H3 and H4, upregulation of retinoic acid receptor-β, p21WAF1/CIP1, E-cadherin, and Bad and downregulation of Bcl-2. These data suggest that the mechanism of action of the combination of agents is DNA damage-induced p21 activation, resulting in inhibition of the Cdc2/cyclin B complex and accumulation of cells in G2/M phase. In addition, the combination caused modulation and induction of apoptosis. These results suggest that VN/66-1 or its combination with MS-275 may be a novel therapy for the treatment of prostate carcinoma

Technical and Comparative Aspects of Brain Glycogen Metabolism.

It has been known for over 50 years that brain has significant glycogen stores, but the physiological function of this energy reserve remains uncertain. This uncertainty stems in part from several technical challenges inherent in the study of brain glycogen metabolism, and may also stem from some conceptual limitations. Factors presenting technical challenges include low glycogen content in brain, non-homogenous labeling of glycogen by radiotracers, rapid glycogenolysis during postmortem tissue handling, and effects of the stress response on brain glycogen turnover. Here, we briefly review aspects of glycogen structure and metabolism that bear on these technical challenges, and discuss ways these can be overcome. We also highlight physiological aspects of glycogen metabolism that limit the conditions under which glycogen metabolism can be useful or advantageous over glucose metabolism. Comparisons with glycogen metabolism in skeletal muscle provide an additional perspective on potential functions of glycogen in brain

Notch and Presenilin Regulate Cellular Expansion and Cytokine Secretion but Cannot Instruct Th1/Th2 Fate Acquisition

Recent reports suggested that Delta1, 4 and Jagged1, 2 possessed the ability to instruct CD4+ T cell into selection of Th1 or Th2 fates, respectively, although the underlying mechanism endowing the cleaved Notch receptor with memory of ligand involved in its activation remains elusive. To examine this, we prepared artificial antigen-presenting cells expressing either DLL1 or Jag1. Although both ligands were efficient in inducing Notch2 cleavage and activation in CD4+ T or reporter cells, the presence of Lunatic Fringe in CD4+ T cells inhibited Jag1 activation of Notch1 receptor. Neither ligand could induce Th1 or Th2 fate choice independently of cytokines or redirect cytokine-driven Th1 or Th2 development. Instead, we find that Notch ligands only augment cytokine production during T cell differentiation in the presence of polarizing IL-12 and IL-4. Moreover, the differentiation choices of naïve CD4+ T cells lacking γ-secretase, RBP-J, or both in response to polarizing cytokines revealed that neither presenilin proteins nor RBP-J were required for cytokine-induced Th1/Th2 fate selection. However, presenilins facilitate cellular proliferation and cytokine secretion in an RBP-J (and thus, Notch) independent manner. The controversies surrounding the role of Notch and presenilins in Th1/Th2 polarization may reflect their role as genetic modifiers of T-helper cells differentiation

Notch and Presenilin Regulate Cellular Expansion and Cytokine Secretion but Cannot Instruct Th1/Th2 Fate Acquisition

Recent reports suggested that Delta1, 4 and Jagged1, 2 possessed the ability to instruct CD4+ T cell into selection of Th1 or Th2 fates, respectively, although the underlying mechanism endowing the cleaved Notch receptor with memory of ligand involved in its activation remains elusive. To examine this, we prepared artificial antigen-presenting cells expressing either DLL1 or Jag1. Although both ligands were efficient in inducing Notch2 cleavage and activation in CD4+ T or reporter cells, the presence of Lunatic Fringe in CD4+ T cells inhibited Jag1 activation of Notch1 receptor. Neither ligand could induce Th1 or Th2 fate choice independently of cytokines or redirect cytokine-driven Th1 or Th2 development. Instead, we find that Notch ligands only augment cytokine production during T cell differentiation in the presence of polarizing IL-12 and IL-4. Moreover, the differentiation choices of naïve CD4+ T cells lacking γ-secretase, RBP-J, or both in response to polarizing cytokines revealed that neither presenilin proteins nor RBP-J were required for cytokine-induced Th1/Th2 fate selection. However, presenilins facilitate cellular proliferation and cytokine secretion in an RBP-J (and thus, Notch) independent manner. The controversies surrounding the role of Notch and presenilins in Th1/Th2 polarization may reflect their role as genetic modifiers of T-helper cells differentiation

Bacteria-inducing legume nodules involved in the improvement of plant growth, health and nutrition

Bacteria-inducing legume nodules are known as rhizobia and belong to the class Alphaproteobacteria and Betaproteobacteria. They promote the growth and nutrition of their respective legume hosts through atmospheric nitrogen fixation which takes place in the nodules induced in their roots or stems. In addition, rhizobia have other plant growth-promoting mechanisms, mainly solubilization of phosphate and production of indoleacetic acid, ACC deaminase and siderophores. Some of these mechanisms have been reported for strains of rhizobia which are also able to promote the growth of several nonlegumes, such as cereals, oilseeds and vegetables. Less studied are the mechanisms that have the rhizobia to promote the plant health; however, these bacteria are able to exert biocontrol of some phytopathogens and to induce the plant resistance. In this chapter, we revised the available data about the ability of the legume nodule-inducing bacteria for improving the plant growth, health and nutrition of both legumes and nonlegumes. These data showed that rhizobia meet all the requirements of sustainable agriculture to be used as bio-inoculants allowing the total or partial replacement of chemicals used for fertilization or protection of crops

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)1.

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field