Determination of no-observed effect level (NOEL)-biomarker equivalents to interpret biomonitoring data for organophosphorus pesticides in children

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Environmental exposure to organophosphorus pesticides has been characterized in various populations, but interpretation of these data from a health risk perspective remains an issue. The current paper proposes biological reference values to help interpret biomonitoring data related to an exposure to organophosphorus pesticides in children for which measurements of alkylphosphate metabolites are available.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Published models describing the kinetics of malathion and chlorpyrifos in humans were used to determine no-observed effect level – biomarker equivalents for methylphosphates and ethylphosphates, respectively. These were expressed in the form of cumulative urinary amounts of alkylphosphates over specified time periods corresponding to an absorbed no-observed effect level dose (derived from a published human exposure dose) and assuming various plausible exposure scenarios. Cumulative amounts of methylphosphate and ethylphosphate metabolites measured in the urine of a group of Quebec children were then compared to the proposed biological reference values.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>From a published no-observed effect level dose for malathion and chlorpyrifos, the model predicts corresponding oral biological reference values for methylphosphate and ethylphosphate derivatives of 106 and 52 nmol/kg of body weight, respectively, in 12-h nighttime urine collections, and dermal biological reference values of 40 and 32 nmol/kg of body weight. Out of the 442 available urine samples, only one presented a methylphosphate excretion exceeding the biological reference value established on the basis of a dermal exposure scenario and none of the methylphosphate and ethylphosphate excretion values were above the obtained oral biological reference values, which reflect the main exposure route in children.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>This study is a first step towards the development of biological guidelines for organophophorus pesticides using a toxicokinetic modeling approach, which can be used to provide a health-based interpretation of biomonitoring data in the general population.</p

Biochemical Recurrence Surrogacy for Clinical Outcomes After Radiotherapy for Adenocarcinoma of the Prostate.

PURPOSE: The surrogacy of biochemical recurrence (BCR) for overall survival (OS) in localized prostate cancer remains controversial. Herein, we evaluate the surrogacy of BCR using different surrogacy analytic methods. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Individual patient data from 11 trials evaluating radiotherapy dose escalation, androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) use, and ADT prolongation were obtained. Surrogate candidacy was assessed using the Prentice criteria (including landmark analyses) and the two-stage meta-analytic approach (estimating Kendall's tau and the R2). Biochemical recurrence-free survival (BCRFS, time from random assignment to BCR or any death) and time to BCR (TTBCR, time from random assignment to BCR or cancer-specific deaths censoring for noncancer-related deaths) were assessed. RESULTS: Overall, 10,741 patients were included. Dose escalation, addition of short-term ADT, and prolongation of ADT duration significantly improved BCR (hazard ratio [HR], 0.71 [95% CI, 0.63 to 0.79]; HR, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.48 to 0.59]; and HR, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.48 to 0.61], respectively). Adding short-term ADT (HR, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.84 to 0.99]) and prolonging ADT (HR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.78 to 0.94]) significantly improved OS, whereas dose escalation did not (HR, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.87 to 1.11]). BCR at 48 months was associated with inferior OS in all three groups (HR, 2.46 [95% CI, 2.08 to 2.92]; HR, 1.51 [95% CI, 1.35 to 1.70]; and HR, 2.31 [95% CI, 2.04 to 2.61], respectively). However, after adjusting for BCR at 48 months, there was no significant treatment effect on OS (HR, 1.10 [95% CI, 0.96 to 1.27]; HR, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.87 to 1.06] and 1.00 [95% CI, 0.90 to 1.12], respectively). The patient-level correlation (Kendall's tau) for BCRFS and OS ranged between 0.59 and 0.69, and that for TTBCR and OS ranged between 0.23 and 0.41. The R2 values for trial-level correlation of the treatment effect on BCRFS and TTBCR with that on OS were 0.563 and 0.160, respectively. CONCLUSION: BCRFS and TTBCR are prognostic but failed to satisfy all surrogacy criteria. Strength of correlation was greater when noncancer-related deaths were considered events

Growth of a human mammary tumor cell line is blocked by galangin, a naturally occurring bioflavonoid, and is accompanied by down-regulation of cyclins D3, E, and A

INTRODUCTION: This study was designed to determine if and how a non-toxic, naturally occurring bioflavonoid, galangin, affects proliferation of human mammary tumor cells. Our previous studies demonstrated that, in other cell types, galangin is a potent inhibitor of the aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AhR), an environmental carcinogen-responsive transcription factor implicated in mammary tumor initiation and growth control. Because some current breast cancer therapeutics are ineffective in estrogen receptor (ER) negative tumors and since the AhR may be involved in breast cancer proliferation, the effects of galangin on the proliferation of an ER(-), AhR(high )line, Hs578T, were studied. METHODS: AhR expression and function in the presence or absence of galangin, a second AhR inhibitor, α-naphthoflavone (α-NF), an AhR agonist, indole-3-carbinol, and a transfected AhR repressor-encoding plasmid (FhAhRR) were studied in Hs578T cells by western blotting for nuclear (for instance, constitutively activated) AhR and by transfection of an AhR-driven reporter construct, pGudLuc. The effects of these agents on cell proliferation were studied by (3)H-thymidine incorporation and by flow cytometry. The effects on cyclins implicated in mammary tumorigenesis were evaluated by western blotting. RESULTS: Hs578T cells were shown to express high levels of constitutively active AhR. Constitutive and environmental chemical-induced AhR activity was profoundly suppressed by galangin as was cell proliferation. However, the failure of α-NF or FhAhRR transfection to block proliferation indicated that galangin-mediated AhR inhibition was either insufficient or unrelated to its ability to significantly block cell proliferation at therapeutically relevant doses (IC(50 )= 11 μM). Galangin inhibited transition of cells from the G(0)/G(1 )to the S phases of cell growth, likely through the nearly total elimination of cyclin D3. Expression of cyclins A and E was also suppressed. CONCLUSION: Galangin is a strong inhibitor of Hs578T cell proliferation that likely mediates this effect through a relatively unique mechanism, suppression of cyclin D3, and not through the AhR. The results suggest that this non-toxic bioflavonoid may be useful as a chemotherapeutic, particularly in combination with agents that target other components of the tumor cell cycle and in situations where estrogen receptor-specific therapeutics are ineffective

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