Search

Abstract: Background: Both histamine and leukotrienes are implicated in the pathogenesis of allergic rhinitis (AR), although the pattern and severity of the nasal response to these two potent inflammatory mediators may differ, which has not been adequately studied in patients with persistent AR. Objective: We sought to compare the differential effects of nasal challenge with leukotriene D4 (LTD4) and histamine on the airway response and inflammation in patients with AR. Methods: An open‐label, crossover study was performed in 25 persistent AR patients (AR group) and 16 healthy subjects (control group). Participants randomly underwent histamine and LTD4 nasal provocation within a two‐week interval. Nasal symptoms according to a visual analogue scale (VAS), fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FENO), nasal lavage, induced sputum, and spirometry were evaluated before and after nasal challenge. Results: Nasal airway resistance (NAR) increased significantly after both LTD4 and histamine nasal challenge in AR patients (P < .05). The potency of LTD4 was 142‐fold higher than that of histamine in increasing NAR (P < .001). The nasal symptom score induced by histamine challenge was significantly higher than that triggered by LTD4 (3.42 ± 0.83 vs. 1.16 ± 0.94, P < .05) in the AR group. LTD4 and histamine nasal challenge led to a significant increase in neutrophils in the nasal lavage and induced sputum (P < .05) in AR patients. There were no significant differences in the changes of eosinophils before and after LTD4 and histamine nasal challenges in nasal lavage and induced sputum. No significant changes in NAR, the induced symptom score, or inflammatory cells in the nasal lavage and sputum were found in the control group. Conclusions: LTD4 and histamine nasal challenge caused different patterns and severities of nasal symptoms, which correlated with symptoms (TSS) that affect patient's daily life. LTD4 was far more potent than histamine at increasing the NAR, while histamine nasal challenge induced more sneezing and nasal discharge. These results may guide the prescription of anti‐histamine or anti‐leukotriene agents for treating different AR phenotypes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: A new aldehyde-free fixative has been developed and its effect has been compared to traditional formaldehyde fixative in terms of the fixation effect and HE staining of the heart, liver, lung, and kidney. The air in the experimental area was examined to evaluate its impact on the environment and human health., Methods: The organs from mice of groups 1-6 were taken respectively (thickness of liver and lung was 3 mm). After the heart and kidney capsule were removed, the organs were longitudinally cut along their maximum surface, and half was taken. Thereafter, the tissue fixation effect was observed by Hematein and Eosin (H＆E) staining and the total protein content of tissue was examined by the ultramicro spectrophotometer. Additionally, the volatility ratio of the new fixative and the traditional formaldehyde is compared., Result: The results showed that there was no significant difference between the fixation effect of the new aldehyde-free fixation and the traditional formaldehyde fixative on mouse organs and the air quality in the experimental area was found to be significantly better when the new aldehyde-free fixative is used than when the traditional formaldehyde fixative is used., Conclusion: Traditional formaldehyde fixative in HE staining can be replaced by the new environment-friendly formaldehyde-free fixative, however further special staining of fixed tissue and immunohistochemical studies are needed.

Background: Both histamine and leukotrienes are implicated in the pathogenesis of allergic rhinitis (AR), although the pattern and severity of the nasal response to these two potent inflammatory mediators may differ, which has not been adequately studied in patients with persistent AR., Objective: We sought to compare the differential effects of nasal challenge with leukotriene D 4 (LTD 4 ) and histamine on the airway response and inflammation in patients with AR., Methods: An open-label, crossover study was performed in 25 persistent AR patients (AR group) and 16 healthy subjects (control group). Participants randomly underwent histamine and LTD 4 nasal provocation within a two-week interval. Nasal symptoms according to a visual analogue scale (VAS), fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FENO), nasal lavage, induced sputum, and spirometry were evaluated before and after nasal challenge., Results: Nasal airway resistance (NAR) increased significantly after both LTD 4 and histamine nasal challenge in AR patients (P < .05). The potency of LTD 4 was 142-fold higher than that of histamine in increasing NAR (P < .001). The nasal symptom score induced by histamine challenge was significantly higher than that triggered by LTD 4 (3.42 ± 0.83 vs. 1.16 ± 0.94, P < .05) in the AR group. LTD 4 and histamine nasal challenge led to a significant increase in neutrophils in the nasal lavage and induced sputum (P < .05) in AR patients. There were no significant differences in the changes of eosinophils before and after LTD4 and histamine nasal challenges in nasal lavage and induced sputum. No significant changes in NAR, the induced symptom score, or inflammatory cells in the nasal lavage and sputum were found in the control group., Conclusions: LTD 4 and histamine nasal challenge caused different patterns and severities of nasal symptoms, which correlated with symptoms (TSS) that affect patient's daily life. LTD4 was far more potent than histamine at increasing the NAR, while histamine nasal challenge induced more sneezing and nasal discharge. These results may guide the prescription of anti-histamine or anti-leukotriene agents for treating different AR phenotypes., (© 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: In asthmatic patients with allergic rhinitis (AR), increased cysteinyl leukotrienes (CysLTs) production in the secretion of nasal mucosa has been associated with greater bronchial hyperresponsiveness (BHR) after nasal allergen challenge. However, the role of CysLTs in eliciting BHR after nasal allergen challenge has not been evaluated. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of LTD 4 nasal challenge on BHR and inflammation in asthmatic patients with AR., Methods: In this self-controlled study, fifteen eligible consecutively recruited subjects underwent methacholine (Mch) bronchial provocation test before and 30 minutes after LTD 4 nasal provocation test. The cumulative concentration of LTD 4 inducing a 60% increase in nasal airway resistance (PC 60 NAR) was calculated. The mean values of cumulative doses inducing a 20% decrease in forced expiratory flow in one second (PD 20 FEV 1 ) for Mch before and after nasal challenge were compared. Fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO), differential inflammatory cell counts in nasal lavage and induced sputum before and after nasal challenge were compared., Results: House dust mites were the major allergens accounting for 10/15 (66.7%) of asthmatic patients with AR. The PC 60 NAR for LT was (8.39±3.48)×10 -3 mg·mL -1 . The PD 20 FEV 1 before and after nasal challenge was 3.05±3.81 and 2.70±3.81 µmol, respectively (P=0.45). The percentages of eosinophils were (38.36±23.14)% and (45.70±24.86)% in nasal lavage, and (17.51±11.05)% and (24.29±16.52)% in induced sputum before and 24 hours after nasal challenge. The neutrophil counts were (60.64±23.14)% and (53.30±24.46)% in nasal lavage, and (53.83±23.27)% and (56.19±22.28)% in induced sputum before and 24 hours after nasal challenge. The values of FeNO were 40 [35] and 43 [30] ppb before and 24 hours after nasal challenge. No severe adverse effects were reported during the tests., Conclusions: Although most asthmatic patients with AR were sensitive to LTD 4 nasal challenge, LTD 4 nasal provocation tests do not confer any major effect on BHR. LTD 4 might not play a vital role in eliciting bronchial responsiveness induced by nasal allergen challenge., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Objective: To study the effect of the synthetic peptide RGDSY-CTTHWGFTLC on the biological behavior of breast cancer MCF-7 cells in vitro., Methods: MCF-7 cells were incubated with different concentrations of the synthesized peptide RGDSY-CTTHWGFTLC (RGDSY-CTT), the positive control peptide CTTHWGFTLC (CTT), or the negative control peptide STTHWGFTLS (STT) in fibronectin-coated 96-well plates for different time lengths, and the changes in cell adhesion, invasiveness, proliferation, apoptosis and cell cycle were detected using Transwell chamber assay, MTT assay, and flow cytometry., Results: Incubation of the cells with 50, 100 and 200 µg/ml of RGDSY-CTT caused a significant concentration- dependent inhibition of the cell adhesion (cell adhesion rates of 85.1%, 74.1% and 63.8%, respectively) with stronger effects than CTT (P<0.05). At 100 and 200 µg/ml, RGDSY-CTT significantly inhibited the invasion (with inhibition rate of 41.8% and 63.9%, respectively) of MCF-7 cells with an effect similar to that by CTT (P>0.05). At 50, 100 and 200 µg/ml, RGDSY-CTT concentration-dependently suppressed MCF-7 cell proliferation (with cell proliferation rates of 98.8%, 82.4% and 63.0%, respectively), and this inhibitory effect was stronger than that of CTT at 100 and 200 µg/ml (P<0.05). The results of flow cytometry also demonstrated a stronger apoptosis-inducing effect of RGDSY-CTT (76.7%) than that in CTT, STT and the blank control groups (P<0.05)., Conclusions: RGDSY-CTT can inhibit cell invasion, suppress adhesion and proliferation, and induce apoptosis in MCF-7 cells.