An ex vivo study of selenium, genistein on the morphological and nuclear changes in anticancer drug-induced apoptosis in human peripheral blood lymphocytes

Dietary genistein supplementation alters mRNA expression profile and alternative splicing signature in the thymus of chicks with lipopolysaccharide challenge

Genistein is abundant in the soybean products, which exerts prominent effects on immune function. Little information is available about the effect of dietary genistein on thymic transcriptome, especially when suffering from lipopolysaccharide challenge. In this study, 180 one-day-old male broilers were randomly allocated to 3 groups: nonchallenged chicks given a basal diet (CON), and lipopolysaccharide-challenged chicks fed a basal diet (LPS), or lipopolysaccharide-challenged chicks fed a basal diet supplemented with 40 mg/kg genistein (GEN). Lipopolysaccharide injection induced thymocyte apoptosis and inflammatory reactions in the chicks. The results showed dietary genistein significantly reduced the percentage of CD3+ T lymphocytes by 10.04% and CD4+/CD8+ T lymphocyte ratio by 21.88% in the peripheral blood induced by lipopolysaccharide injection (P < 0.05). In addition, genistein significantly reduced the thymus index by 50% and apoptotic index by 12.34% induced by LPS challenge (P < 0.05). Transcriptomic analysis identified 1,926 DEGs (1,014 upregulated and 912 downregulated, P < 0.05) between GEN and LPS groups, which altered the mRNA expression profile and signaling pathways (Toll-like receptor, and NOD-like receptor signaling pathway) in the thymus. Furthermore, 5 splicing (AS) isoforms of the Drosophila Disabled-2 (DAB2) gene were detected, which were significantly upregulated in the GEN group compared with that in the LPS group. In summary, dietary genistein supplementation altered the RNA expression profile and AS signatures in the thymus, and alleviated immune response against lipopolysaccharide challenge.

Natural compounds as potential adjuvants to cancer therapy: Preclinical evidence

Traditional chemotherapy is being considered due to hindrances caused by systemic toxicity. Currently, the administration of multiple chemotherapeutic drugs with different biochemical/molecular targets, known as combination chemotherapy, has attained numerous benefits like efficacy enhancement and amelioration of adverse effects that has been broadly applied to various cancer types. Additionally, seeking natural-based alternatives with less toxicity has become more important. Experimental evidence suggests that herbal extracts such as Solanum nigrum and Claviceps purpurea and isolated herbal compounds (e.g., curcumin, resveratrol, and matairesinol) combined with antitumoral drugs have the potential to attenuate resistance against cancer therapy and to exert chemoprotective actions. Plant products are not free of risks: Herb adverse effects, including herb-drug interactions, should be carefully considered. LINKED ARTICLES: This article is part of a themed section on The Pharmacology of Nutraceuticals. To view the other articles in this section visit http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bph.v177.6/issuetoc.

Synergistic Effects of Plant Derivatives and Conventional Chemotherapeutic Agents: An Update on the Cancer Perspective

Synergy is a process in which some substances cooperate to reach a combined effect that is greater than the sum of their separate effects. It can be considered a natural "straight" strategy which has evolved by nature to obtain more efficacy at low cost. In this regard, synergistic effects may be observed in the interaction between herbal products and conventional drugs or biochemical compounds. It is important to identify and exploit these interactions since any improvement brought by such kind of process can be advantageously used to treat human disorders. Even in a complex disease such as cancer, positive synergistic plant-drug interactions should be investigated to achieve the best outcomes, including providing a greater benefit to patients or avoiding adverse side effects. This review analyzes and summarizes the current knowledge on the synergistic effects of plant-drug interactions with a focus on anticancer strategies.

Potential pharmacological interventions against hematotoxicity: an overview

Various treatment regimens, including chemotherapy, are known to induce heavy oxidative stress on the system, which in turn leads to adverse effects on healthy tissues. Blood being prone to oxidative stress is affected the most. At this juncture, it might not be prudent to anticipate having chemotherapeutic agents with no hematotoxicity; the best way forward is to look for potential anti-hematotoxic compounds, which could be supplemented to exposed patients, thus reducing the toxic burden on blood cells. We mined existing literature for reviewing possible interventions against hematotoxicity and figured that there is a great lacuna in this field in terms of not having such useful information at one place. This review presents the possible entities based on their antioxidant potentials, including their mechanistic pathways.

Selenium for preventing cancer

BACKGROUND

This review is an update of the first Cochrane publication on selenium for preventing cancer (Dennert 2011).Selenium is a metalloid with both nutritional and toxicological properties. Higher selenium exposure and selenium supplements have been suggested to protect against several types of cancers.

OBJECTIVES

Two research questions were addressed in this review: What is the evidence for:1. an aetiological relation between selenium exposure and cancer risk in humans? and2. the efficacy of selenium supplementation for cancer prevention in humans?

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted electronic searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, 2013, Issue 1), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1966 to February 2013 week 1), EMBASE (1980 to 2013 week 6), CancerLit (February 2004) and CCMed (February 2011). As MEDLINE now includes the journals indexed in CancerLit, no further searches were conducted in this database after 2004.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included prospective observational studies (cohort studies including sub-cohort controlled studies and nested case-control studies) and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with healthy adult participants (18 years of age and older).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

For observational studies, we conducted random effects meta-analyses when five or more studies were retrieved for a specific outcome. For RCTs, we performed random effects meta-analyses when two or more studies were available. The risk of bias in observational studies was assessed using forms adapted from the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale for cohort and case-control studies; the criteria specified in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions were used to evaluate the risk of bias in RCTs.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 55 prospective observational studies (including more than 1,100,000 participants) and eight RCTs (with a total of 44,743 participants). For the observational studies, we found lower cancer incidence (summary odds ratio (OR) 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 0.91, N = 8) and cancer mortality (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.93, N = 6) associated with higher selenium exposure. Gender-specific subgroup analysis provided no clear evidence of different effects in men and women (P value 0.47), although cancer incidence was lower in men (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.05, N = 6) than in women (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.77, N = 2). The most pronounced decreases in risk of site-specific cancers were seen for stomach, bladder and prostate cancers. However, these findings have limitations due to study design, quality and heterogeneity that complicate interpretation of the summary statistics. Some studies suggested that genetic factors may modify the relation between selenium and cancer risk-a hypothesis that deserves further investigation.In RCTs, we found no clear evidence that selenium supplementation reduced the risk of any cancer (risk ratio (RR) 0.90, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.17, two studies, N = 4765) or cancer-related mortality (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.32, two studies, N = 18,698), and this finding was confirmed when the analysis was restricted to studies with low risk of bias. The effect on prostate cancer was imprecise (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.14, four studies, N = 19,110), and when the analysis was limited to trials with low risk of bias, the interventions showed no effect (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.14, three studies, N = 18,183). The risk of non-melanoma skin cancer was increased (RR 1.44, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.17, three studies, N = 1900). Results of two trials-the Nutritional Prevention of Cancer Trial (NPCT) and the Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Trial (SELECT)-also raised concerns about possible increased risk of type 2 diabetes, alopecia and dermatitis due to selenium supplements. An early hypothesis generated by NPCT that individuals with the lowest blood selenium levels at baseline could reduce their risk of cancer, particularly of prostate cancer, by increasing selenium intake has not been confirmed by subsequent trials. As the RCT participants were overwhelmingly male (94%), gender differences could not be systematically assessed.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Although an inverse association between selenium exposure and the risk of some types of cancer was found in some observational studies, this cannot be taken as evidence of a causal relation, and these results should be interpreted with caution. These studies have many limitations, including issues with assessment of exposure to selenium and to its various chemical forms, heterogeneity, confounding and other biases. Conflicting results including inverse, null and direct associations have been reported for some cancer types.RCTs assessing the effects of selenium supplementation on cancer risk have yielded inconsistent results, although the most recent studies, characterised by a low risk of bias, found no beneficial effect on cancer risk, more specifically on risk of prostate cancer, as well as little evidence of any influence of baseline selenium status. Rather, some trials suggest harmful effects of selenium exposure. To date, no convincing evidence suggests that selenium supplements can prevent cancer in humans.

Friend or foe? The current epidemiologic evidence on selenium and human cancer risk

Scientific opinion on the relationship between selenium and the risk of cancer has undergone radical change over the years, with selenium first viewed as a possible carcinogen in the 1940s then as a possible cancer preventive agent in the 1960s-2000s. More recently, randomized controlled trials have found no effect on cancer risk but suggest possible low-dose dermatologic and endocrine toxicity, and animal studies indicate both carcinogenic and cancer-preventive effects. A growing body of evidence from human and laboratory studies indicates dramatically different biological effects of the various inorganic and organic chemical forms of selenium, which may explain apparent inconsistencies across studies. These chemical form-specific effects also have important implications for exposure and health risk assessment. Overall, available epidemiologic evidence suggests no cancer preventive effect of increased selenium intake in healthy individuals and possible increased risk of other diseases and disorders.