METHODS: GLES was orally administered at doses of 250, 500 and 1000 mg/kg/day consecutively for 90 days.
RESULTS: No behavioral or physiological changes and mortality were observed. GLES did not have a marked impact on general hematological parameters and did not precipitate nephrotoxicity. However, compared to the control, serum triglycerides, total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein levels were lower and white adipose tissue paired retroperitoneal fat depots were depleted in male rats treated with GLES3 by the end of the experiment. The liver was significantly enlarged in GLES-treated rats of both sexes. Negative gender-specific alterations were observed with the highest dose. Adverse risk was evident in the female rats mainly due to marked body weight gain and cerebrum weight reduction.
CONCLUSION: Further research is needed to reach more specific conclusions about to the safety of ingesting high doses of GLES for long periods of time.
METHODS: In total, 80 samples of tumor and matched adjacent normal tissues were collected from breast cancer patients at Seberang Jaya Hospital (SJH) and Kepala Batas Hospital (KBH), both in Penang, Malaysia. The protein expression profiles of breast cancer and normal tissues were mapped by sodium dodecyl sulfate polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (SDS-PAGE). The Gel-Eluted Liquid Fractionation Entrapment Electrophoresis (GELFREE) Technology System was used for the separation and fractionation of extracted proteins, which also were analyzed to maximize protein detection. The protein fractions were then analyzed by tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) analysis using LC/MS LTQ-Orbitrap Fusion and Elite. This study identified the proteins contained within the tissue samples using de novo sequencing and database matching via PEAKS software. We performed two different pathway analyses, DAVID and STRING, in the sets of proteins from stage 2 and stage 3 breast cancer samples. The lists of molecules were generated by the REACTOME-FI plugin, part of the CYTOSCAPE tool, and linker nodes were added in order to generate a connected network. Then, pathway enrichment was obtained, and a graphical model was created to depict the participation of the input proteins as well as the linker nodes.
RESULTS: This study identified 12 proteins that were detected in stage 2 tumor tissues, and 17 proteins that were detected in stage 3 tumor tissues, related to their normal counterparts. It also identified some proteins that were present in stage 2 but not stage 3 and vice versa. Based on these results, this study clarified unique proteins pathways involved in carcinogenesis within stage 2 and stage 3 breast cancers.
CONCLUSIONS: This study provided some useful insights about the proteins associated with breast cancer carcinogenesis and could establish an important foundation for future cancer-related discoveries using differential proteomics profiling. Beyond protein identification, this study considered the interaction, function, network, signaling pathway, and protein pathway involved in each profile. These results suggest that knowledge of protein expression, especially in stage 2 and stage 3 breast cancer, can provide important clues that may enable the discovery of novel biomarkers in carcinogenesis.