EDACO, a derivative of myricetin, inhibits the differentiation of Gaoyou duck embryonic osteoclasts in vitro

1. This study determined the effects of (E)-3-(2-(4-(3-(2,4-dimethoxyphenyl)acryloyl)phenoxy)ethoxy)-5,7-dimethoxy-2-(3,4,5-trimethoxyphenyl)-4H-chromen-4-one (EDACO) on the differentiation of Gaoyou duck embryonic osteoclasts cultured in vitro. 2. Bone marrow mononuclear cells (BM-MNC) were collected from 23-d-old Gaoyou duck embryos and induced by macrophage colony-stimulating factor and receptor activator of nuclear factor κB ligand in the presence of EDACO at different concentrations (i.e. 10, 20, 40, 80 and 160 µM). Tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase (TRAP) staining and resorption ability determination were conducted. 3. Results suggested that EDACO suppressed the shaping of positive multinucleated cells and the number of TRAP-positive cells in the 20, 40, 80 and 160 μM EDACO groups was significantly decreased (P < 0.05 or P < 0.01). Besides, the absorption activity of differentiated duck embryonic osteoclasts was significantly inhibited (P < 0.05) in both 80 and 160 μM EDACO groups. 4. Overall, EDACO can inhibit the differentiation of BM-MNC into mature osteoclasts in duck embryos.1.

Chemoprevention of gastric cancer by celecoxib in rats

BACKGROUND

Overexpression of cyclooxygenase 2 (COX-2) is frequently detected in gastric cancer and is believed to play a crucial role in gastric carcinogenesis.

AIM

We examined the chemopreventive effect of a COX-2 inhibitor in an animal model of stomach carcinogenesis.

METHODS

Eighty six male Wistar rats were divided into six different treatment groups: group A, water alone (n = 5); group B, N-methyl-N'-nitro-N-nitrosoguanidine (MNNG 100 micro g/ml) (n = 16); group C, indomethacin (3 mg/kg/day) (n = 16); group D, celecoxib (5 mg/kg/day) (n = 17); group E, celecoxib (10 mg/kg/day) (n = 16); and group F, celecoxib (20 mg/kg/day) (n = 16). Group B-F animals were treated with 10% sodium chloride (in the initial six weeks) and MNNG in drinking water to induce adenocarcinoma in the stomach. All animals received treatment for 40 weeks, and were sacrificed after death or at 48 weeks. Gastric neoplasm was evaluated by histology.

RESULTS

The incidences of gastric cancer were 0% in group A, 75% in group B, 68.8% in group C, 70.6% in group D, 18.8% in group E, and 31.3% in group F (p = 0.002, ANOVA). Compared with MNNG controls, treatment with celecoxib 10 mg/kg/day also showed lower tumour multiplicity (0.19 (0.40) v 1.00 (0.73); p = 0.004) and lower mean tumour volume (2.4 v 2805 mm(3); p = 0.02). Although tumours had significantly higher COX-2 expression than their adjacent normal tissues (p<0.02), there was no significant difference in COX-2 levels among tumours in the different treatment groups. The lowest tumour prostaglandin E(2) level was found in the indomethacin treated group, suggesting that the chemopreventive effect of celecoxib may be mediated by a COX independent pathway.

CONCLUSION

While treatment with indomethacin had no significant effect on tumour development, treatment with celecoxib reduced gastric cancer incidence and growth in rats.