Plasma protein oxidation in patients with brain tumors

Antioxidants in brain tumors: current therapeutic significance and future prospects

Brain cancer is regarded among the deadliest forms of cancer worldwide. The distinct tumor microenvironment and inherent characteristics of brain tumor cells virtually render them resistant to the majority of conventional and advanced therapies. Oxidative stress (OS) is a key disruptor of normal brain homeostasis and is involved in carcinogenesis of different forms of brain cancers. Thus, antioxidants may inhibit tumorigenesis by preventing OS induced by various oncogenic factors. Antioxidants are hypothesized to inhibit cancer initiation by endorsing DNA repair and suppressing cancer progression by creating an energy crisis for preneoplastic cells, resulting in antiproliferative effects. These effects are referred to as chemopreventive effects mediated by an antioxidant mechanism. In addition, antioxidants minimize chemotherapy-induced nonspecific organ toxicity and prolong survival. Antioxidants also support the prooxidant chemistry that demonstrate chemotherapeutic potential, particularly at high or pharmacological doses and trigger OS by promoting free radical production, which is essential for activating cell death pathways. A growing body of evidence also revealed the roles of exogenous antioxidants as adjuvants and their ability to reverse chemoresistance. In this review, we explain the influences of different exogenous and endogenous antioxidants on brain cancers with reference to their chemopreventive and chemotherapeutic roles. The role of antioxidants on metabolic reprogramming and their influence on downstream signaling events induced by tumor suppressor gene mutations are critically discussed. Finally, the review hypothesized that both pro- and antioxidant roles are involved in the anticancer mechanisms of the antioxidant molecules by killing neoplastic cells and inhibiting tumor recurrence followed by conventional cancer treatments. The requirements of pro- and antioxidant effects of exogenous antioxidants in brain tumor treatment under different conditions are critically discussed along with the reasons behind the conflicting outcomes in different reports. Finally, we also mention the influencing factors that regulate the pharmacology of the exogenous antioxidants in brain cancer treatment. In conclusion, to achieve consistent clinical outcomes with antioxidant treatments in brain cancers, rigorous mechanistic studies are required with respect to the types, forms, and stages of brain tumors. The concomitant treatment regimens also need adequate consideration.

Protein thiols and butryrylcholinestrase in saliva of oral cancer patients

Oral squamous cell carcinoma is one of the most common malignancies recognized. Biomarkers which can predict presence of cancer and its progression can help in better management of these disorders. Over production of lipid peroxidation byproducts and disturbances in antioxidant defense system have been implicated in the pathogenesis of several diseases including oral cancer. Studies have shown a correlation of butyrylcholinesterase (BChE), with tumourigenesis, cell proliferation and cell differentiation. Earlier we have observed a significant elevation in plasma BChE and protein thiols in oral cancer patients which correlated well with stages of cancer. As it was not clear whether the above markers will be altered in saliva of oral cancer patients this study was undertaken. Institutional Ethics Committee gave permission to carry out this study. Total of 55 subjects comprising healthy controls (n = 30) and biopsy proven oral cancer patients (n = 25) consented to participate in this study. Salivary samples from cases were taken before any definitive treatment. Protein thiols and BChE were estimated in salivary samples using validated assay methods. Oral cancer patients had a significant increase in pre-treatment salivary BChE levels (p ≤ 0.001) and a significant decrease (p ≤ 0.001) in salivary thiols as compared to respective values in controls. Salivary protein thiols and BChE may have a role in pathophysiology of oral cancer. Saliva can be used as a potential non-invasive screening tool in oral cancer patients.

Eosinophils in glioblastoma biology

Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) is the most common primary brain tumor in adults. The development of this malignant glial lesion involves a multi-faceted process that results in a loss of genetic or epigenetic gene control, un-regulated cell growth, and immune tolerance. Of interest, atopic diseases are characterized by a lack of immune tolerance and are inversely associated with glioma risk. One cell type that is an established effector cell in the pathobiology of atopic disease is the eosinophil. In response to various stimuli, the eosinophil is able to produce cytotoxic granules, neuromediators, and pro-inflammatory cytokines as well as pro-fibrotic and angiogenic factors involved in pathogen clearance and tissue remodeling and repair. These various biological properties reveal that the eosinophil is a key immunoregulatory cell capable of influencing the activity of both innate and adaptive immune responses. Of central importance to this report is the observation that eosinophil migration to the brain occurs in response to traumatic brain injury and following certain immunotherapeutic treatments for GBM. Although eosinophils have been identified in various central nervous system pathologies, and are known to operate in wound/repair and tumorstatic models, the potential roles of eosinophils in GBM development and the tumor immunological response are only beginning to be recognized and are therefore the subject of the present review.

Serum oxidized protein and prostate cancer risk within the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial

To evaluate the role of oxidative stress in prostate cancer risk, we analyzed serum levels of protein carbonyl groups in 1,808 prostate cancer cases and 1,805 controls, nested in the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial, a randomized, placebo-controlled trial that found finasteride decreased prostate cancer risk. There were no significant differences in protein carbonyl levels in baseline samples between those later diagnosed with prostate cancer and those without at the end of study biopsy. Adjusted odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for the 4th quartile of protein carbonyl level for the combined, placebo, and finasteride arms were 1.03 (95% CI, 0.85-1.24), 0.88 (95% CI, 0.69-1.12), and 1.27 (95% CI, 0.94-1.71), respectively. There were no significant associations between carbonyl level and risk when analyzing high-grade and low-grade disease separately, nor did finasteride affect protein oxidation levels. The results of this large nested case-control study do not support the hypothesis that oxidative stress, at least as measured by protein carbonyl level, plays a role in prostate cancer.