Molecular analysis of PDGFRA and PDGFRB genes by rapid single-strand conformation polymorfism (SSCP) in patients with core-binding factor leukaemias with KIT or FLT3 mutation

BACKGROUND: Mutations involving KIT and FLT3 genes, encoding tyrosine kinase (TK) membrane receptors, are detected in core-binding factor leukaemia (CBFL) patients. PDFGRA and PDGFRB encode class III TK receptors and are involved both in physiological processes and in the pathogenesis of haematological and solid tumours. The aim of this study was to investigate if PDGFR mutations are involved in CBFL. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In order to detect PDGFR mutations in CBFL, 35 patients without KIT or FLT3 mutations patients were screened by rapid and sensitive single-strand conformation polymorphism (SSCP) analysis. Sequence analysis was performed in polymerase chain reaction (PCR) products showing altered mobility in SSCP analysis in order to determine the nucleotide changes. RESULTS: Three types of single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) were detected in the PDGFRA gene (exon 12, exon 13 and exon 18) while no mutation of PDGFRB was detected in the tested CBFLs. CONCLUSION: These data showed that no pathogenic mutations in PDGFRA and PDGFRB were detected in the context of CBFL without KIT and FLT3 mutations. Thus, PDGFR genes do not seem to be involved in CBFL and future studies are needed to establish the genetic causes of the disease in these particular patients

In vivo evaluation of hydrophilic and hydrophobic mucoadhesive semi-solid formulations containing sucralfate and lidocaine for intraoral use

Two types of mucoadhesive semi-solid formulations (hydrophilic and hydrophobic) for the treatment of mucositises, stomatitises and aphtae were investigated in healthy human volunteers using a gamma scintigraphic technique. The investigations showed that the clearance of hydrophobic formulations follows zero order kinetics whereas the hydrophilic formulation follows a biphasic elimination pattern. All formulations showed an acceptable tolerance but the subjects' preference went clearly to the hydrophobic formulations. Hydrophobic formulations maintained their adhesive and cohesive properties throughout the test period, loosing less than 10% activity within the first hour, whereas about 50% of the mucoadhesive hydrophilic preparation was eliminated within the same time period