DLK1 and DLK2 characterization in mouse salivary gland development

103 p.; 102 p.

DNA Damage and Transcriptional Changes in the Gills of Mytilus galloprovincialis Exposed to Nanomolar Doses of Combined Metal Salts (Cd, Cu, Hg)

[ENG]Aiming at an integrated and mechanistic view of the early biological effects of selected metals in the marine sentinel organism Mytilus galloprovincialis, we exposed mussels for 48 hours to 50, 100 and 200 nM solutions of equimolar Cd, Cu and Hg salts and measured cytological and molecular biomarkers in parallel. Focusing on the mussel gills, first target of toxic water contaminants and actively proliferating tissue, we detected significant dose-related increases of cells with micronuclei and other nuclear abnormalities in the treated mussels, with differences in the bioconcentration of the three metals determined in the mussel flesh by atomic absorption spectrometry. Gene expression profiles, determined in the same individual gills in parallel, revealed some transcriptional changes at the 50 nM dose, and substantial increases of differentially expressed genes at the 100 and 200 nM doses, with roughly similar amounts of up- and down-regulated genes. The functional annotation of gill transcripts with consistent expression trends and significantly altered at least in one dose point disclosed the complexity of the induced cell response. The most evident transcriptional changes concerned protein synthesis and turnover, ion homeostasis, cell cycle regulation and apoptosis, and intracellular trafficking (transcript sequences denoting heat shock proteins, metal binding thioneins, sequestosome 1 and proteasome subunits, and GADD45 exemplify up-regulated genes while transcript sequences denoting actin, tubulins and the apoptosis inhibitor 1 exemplify down-regulated genes). Overall, nanomolar doses of co-occurring free metal ions have induced significant structural and functional changes in the mussel gills: the intensity of response to the stimulus measured in laboratory supports the additional validation of molecular markers of metal exposure to be used in Mussel Watch programs

Randomised, crossover clinical trial, in healthy volunteers, to compare the systemic availability of two topical intranasal budesonide formulations

Background: Budesonide has a long history as intranasal drug, with many marketed products. Efforts should be made to demonstrate the therapeutic equivalence and safety comparability between them. Given that systemic availability significantly varies from formulations, the clinical comparability of diverse products comes to be of clinical interest and a regulatory requirement. The aim of the present study was to compare the systemic availability, pharmacodynamic effect, and safety of two intranasal budesonide formulations for the treatment of rhinitis. Methods: Eighteen healthy volunteers participated in this randomised, controlled, crossover, clinical trial. On two separated days, subjects received a single dose of 512 mu g budesonide (4 puffs per nostril) from each of the assayed devices (Budesonida nasal 64 (R), Aldo-Union, Spain and Rhinocort 64 (R), AstraZeneca, Spain). Budesonide availability was determined by the measurement of budesonide plasma concentration. The pharmacodynamic effect on the hypothalamic-adrenal axis was evaluated as both plasma and urine cortisol levels. Adverse events were tabulated and described. Budesonide availability between formulations was compared by the calculation of 90% CI intervals of the ratios of the main pharmacokinetic parameters describing budesonide bioavailability. Plasma cortisol concentration-time curves were compared by means of a GLM for Repeated Measures. Urine cortisol excretion between formulations was compared through the Wilcoxon's test. Results: All the enroled volunteers successfully completed the study. Pharmacokinetic parameters were comparable in terms of AUC(t) (2.6 +/- 1.5 vs 2.2 +/- 0.7), AUCi (2.9 +/- 1.5 vs 2.4 +/- 0.7), t(max) (0.4 +/- 0.1 vs 0.4 +/- 0.2), C(max)/AUC(i) (0.3 +/- 0.1 vs 0.3 +/- 0.0), and MRT (5.0 +/- 1.4 vs 4.5 +/- 0.6), but not in the case of C(max) (0.9 +/- 0.3 vs 0.7 +/- 0.2) and t(1/2) (3.7 +/- 1.8 vs 2.9 +/- 0.4). The pharmacodynamic effects, measured as the effect over plasma and urine cortisol, were also comparables between both formulations. No severe adverse events were reported and tolerance was comparable between formulations. Conclusion: The systemic availability of intranasal budesonide was comparable for both formulations in terms of most pharmacokinetic parameters. The pharmacodynamic effect on hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis was also similar. Side effects were scarce and equivalent between the two products. This methodology to compare different budesonide-containing devices is reliable and easy to perform, and should be recommended for similar products intented to be marketed or already on the market.