Evaluation of diphenhydramine in talc induced type 2 diabetes mellitus in Wistar rats

LncRNAs and miRs as epigenetic signatures in diabetic cardiac fibrosis: new advances and perspectives

PURPOSE

Diabetic cardiomyopathy (DCM) is a serious cardiac complication of diabetes, which further lead to heartfailure. It is known that diabetes-induced cardiac fibrosis is a key pathogenic factor contributing topathological changes in DCM. However, pathogenetic mechanisms underlying diabetes cardiac fibrosis arestill elusive. Recent studies have indicated that noncoding RNAs (ncRNAs) play a key role in diabetescardiac fibrosis. The increasing complexity of epigenetic regulator poses great challenges to ourconventional conceptions regarding how ncRNAs regulate diabetes cardiac fibrosis.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus for manuscripts published prior to April 2018 using keywords "Diabetic cardiomyopathy" AND " diabetes cardiac fibrosis " OR " noncoding RNAs " OR " longnoncoding RNAs " OR " microRNAs " OR "epigenetic". Manuscripts were collated, studied and carriedforward for discussion where appropriate.

RESULTS

Based on the view that during diabetic cardiac fibrosis, ncRNAs are able to regulate diabetic cardiac fibrosisby targeting genes involved in epigenetic pathways. Many studies have focused on ncRNAs, an epigeneticregulator deregulating protein-coding genes in diabetic cardiac fibrosis, to identify potential therapeutictargets. Recent advances and new perspectives have found that long noncoding RNAs and microRNAs,exert their own effects on the progression of diabetic cardiac fibrosis.

CONCLUSION

We firstly examine the growing role of ncRNAs characteristics and ncRNAs-regulated genes involved indiabetic cardiac fibrosis. Then, we provide several possible therapeutic strategies and highlight the potentialof molecular mechanisms in which targeting epigenetic regulators are considered as an effective means of treating diabetic cardiac fibrosis.

Re-evaluation of calcium silicate (E 552), magnesium silicate (E 553a(i)), magnesium trisilicate (E 553a(ii)) and talc (E 553b) as food additives

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) provides a scientific opinion re-evaluating the safety of calcium silicate (E 552), magnesium silicate (E 553a) and talc (E 553b) when used as food additives. In 1991, the Scientific Committee on Food (SCF) established a group acceptable daily intake (ADI) 'not specified' for silicon dioxide and silicates. The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) recently provided a scientific opinion re-evaluating the safety of silicon dioxide (E 551) when used as a food additive. The Panel noted that the absorption of silicates and talc was very low; there was no indication for genotoxicity or developmental toxicity for calcium and magnesium silicate and talc; and no confirmed cases of kidney effects have been found in the EudraVigilance database despite the wide and long-term use of high doses of magnesium trisilicate up to 4 g/person per day over decades. However, the Panel considered that accumulation of silicon from calcium silicate in the kidney and liver was reported in rats, and reliable data on subchronic and chronic toxicity, carcinogenicity and reproductive toxicity of silicates and talc were lacking. Therefore, the Panel concluded that the safety of calcium silicate (E 552), magnesium silicate (E 553a(i)), magnesium trisilicate (E 553a(ii)) and talc (E 553b) when used as food additives cannot be assessed. The Panel considered that there is no mechanistic rationale for a group ADI for silicates and silicon dioxide and the group ADI established by the SCF is obsolete. Based on the food supplement scenario considered as the most representative for risk characterisation, exposure to silicates (E 552-553) for all population groups was below the maximum daily dose of magnesium trisilicate used as an antacid (4 g/person per day). The Panel noted that there were a number of approaches, which could decrease the uncertainties in the current toxicological database. These approaches include - but are not limited to - toxicological studies as recommended for a Tier 1 approach as described in the EFSA Guidance for the submission of food additives and conducted with an adequately characterised material. Some recommendations for the revision of the EU specifications were proposed by the Panel.