Search

Endothelin-1 (ET-1) plays a physiological role as a potent vasoconstrictor. It is implicated in an array of diseases, and its signalling is often found to be overactivated within cancers. ET-1 has been found to potentiate hallmarks of cancer progression such as cell proliferation, invasion and metastasis, as well as angiogenesis. ET-1 has also been implicated in inducing the epithelial–mesenchymal transition (EMT) and promoting resistance to anticancer drugs. Many preclinical efforts have been made to target ET-1 expression within cancer, such as by using ET-1 receptor antagonists, many of which have been approved for treating pulmonary hypertension. Targeting ET-1 has been shown to improve the response to various other cancer therapeutics, highlighting the potential benefits targeting this peptide may exert. Drug repurposing is an attractive strategy, and exploration of this avenue may be promising for targeting ET-1 in cancer. There are many clinical trials which have been completed and are currently undergoing involving the repurposing of ET-1 receptor antagonists for cancer treatment. In this review, the pathways through which ET-1 potentiates cancer will be discussed, as well as where the opportunity for therapeutic intervention lies in relation to cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Malaysian Journal of Distance Education is the property of Universiti Sains Malaysia and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article focuses on comments by a group of doctors in response to the article "The effect of coenzyme Q10 (COQ10) therapy in Parkinson disease could be symptomatic," published in the August 2003 issue of the journal 'Arch Neurol.' A question regarding whether the effect on the total UPDRS score that was found in the study described in the article, could have been due to a symptomatic effect of CoQ10. They state that the neuroprotective effect been proposed in the previous article is not of great clinical importance because CoQ10 therapy apparently did not postpone levodopa treatment. A point is made by them stating that it may be appropriate to relate the effects of CoQ10 to the blood or tissue levels rather than to the dose as in the article. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]