METHODS: The antinociceptive potential of orally administered PECN (100, 250, 500 mg/kg) was studied using the abdominal constriction-, hot plate- and formalin-induced paw licking-test in mice (n = 6). The effect of PECN on locomotor activity was also evaluated using the rota rod assay. The role of opioid receptors was determined by pre-challenging 500 mg/kg PECN (p.o.) with antagonist of opioid receptor subtypes, namely β-funaltrexamine (β-FNA; 10 mg/kg; a μ-opioid antagonist), naltrindole (NALT; 1 mg/kg; a δ-opioid antagonist) or nor-binaltorphimine (nor-BNI; 1 mg/kg; a κ-opioid antagonist) followed by subjection to the abdominal constriction test. In addition, the role of L-arg/NO/cGMP pathway was determined by prechallenging 500 mg/kg PECN (p.o.) with L-arg (20 mg/kg; a NO precursor), 1H-[1, 2, 4] oxadiazolo [4,3-a]quinoxalin-1-one (ODQ; 2 mg/kg; a specific soluble guanylyl cyclase inhibitor), or the combinations thereof (L-arg + ODQ) for 5 mins before subjection to the abdominal constriction test. PECN was also subjected to phytoconstituents analyses.
RESULTS: PECN significantly (p 0.05) affect the locomotor activity of treated mice. The antinociceptive activity of PECN was significantly (p 0.05) affected by ODQ. HPLC analysis revealed the presence of at least cinnamic acid in PECN.
CONCLUSION: PECN exerted antinocicpetive activity at peripheral and central levels possibly via the activation of non-selective opioid receptors and modulation of the NO-mediated/cGMP-independent pathway partly via the synergistic action of phenolic compounds.
METHODS: The 50% inhibitory concentration (IC50) of PTZ and TFP in SW1116, SW480, HCT-15, and COLO205 colon cancer cell lines are measured using MTT. Western blot and immunocytochemistry were used to determine the expression of PCNA, cyclin D1 (CD1), and POPDC proteins. Cell migration was observed using a scratch wound-healing assay.
RESULTS: Treatment with PTZ and TFP inhibited colon cancer cells growth in a dose-dependent manner. PTZ and TFP significantly inhibited the activation of proliferation markers, PCNA and CD1, and the migration of colon cancer cells. Furthermore, POPDC protein was significantly suppressed in all cell types of colon cancer, particularly in SW480. Finally, the CaM antagonist upregulates the POPDC1 expression in colon cancer cells.
CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that CaM antagonists suppress colon cancer cells proliferation via downregulation of CD1 and PCNA. In addition, POPDC protein could be used as a biomarker in colon cancer, and CaM antagonist could be used to regulate POPDC1 expression. This study suggests that targeting POPDC1 with CaM inhibition could be a potential therapeutic strategy for colon cancer treatment.
.