Of the selected three peptides (designated P1, P2 and P3), P1 (MAGE-A10(310-318), SLLKFLAKV) could elicit peptide-specific CTLs both in vitro from HLA-A*0201-positive PBMCs and in HLA-A*0201/K(b) transgenic mice, and the induced CTLs could lyse MAGE-A10-expressing tumor cells in a HLA-A*0201-restricted fashion but not MAGE-A10-negative tumor cells. Our results demonstrate that the peptide MAGE-A10(310-318) is a HLA-A*0201-restricted CTL epitope of MAGE-A10 and could serve
as a target for therapeutic antitumoral vaccination.”
“Oral cancer accounts VX-809 supplier for 40%-50% of all cancers in India. Tobacco and alcohol are the major etiological factors contributing to its pathogenesis. The aim of the present study was to explore the key mechanism behind the inhibitory
effects of rosmarinic acid against 7,12-dimethylbenz(a)anthracene GSI-IX solubility dmso (DMBA) induced oral carcinogenesis by evaluating the status of biochemical markers (lipid peroxidation, antioxidants, and detoxification enzymes) and immunoexpression patterns of p53 and bcl-2 proteins. Oral tumors were developed by painting the buccal pouches of golden Syrian hamsters with 0.5% DMBA in liquid paraffin 3 times a week for 14 weeks. We noticed 100% tumor formation in hamsters treated with DMBA alone, and the tumors were histopathologically confirmed as well-differentiated squamous cell carcinoma. Oral administration of rosmarinic acid (100 mg/kg body wt) to DMBA-treated hamsters completely prevented the tumor formation. In addition, rosmarinic acid significantly returned the status of biochemical and molecular markers to near normal range in DMBA-treated hamsters. The
results of the present study suggest Selleckchem PP2 that rosmarinic acid suppresses oral carcinogenesis by stimulating the activities of detoxification enzymes, improves the status of lipid peroxidation and antioxidants, and downregulates the expression of p53 and bcl-2 during DMBA-induced oral carcinogenesis.”
“Transgenic crops were first commercialised almost 20 years ago, which makes it a good opportunity to reflect on this technology. In this review, we compare its status with the predictions included in Vasil’s forecast published in 2002. Our analysis shows that science has provided a wide range of possibilities to modify different traits in plants, yet the economy benefits from that range to very different extents. We also point out the most important constituents of the technology development involving methodology improvement and novel traits expressed in varieties introduced into agriculture. Using native genes (or their elements) in transgenes, accumulating previously produced transgenes to cascade resistance and using herbicide resistance as a selectable marker have been considered typical of novel genetically modified (GM) plant varieties.