Genistein is an isoflavone first isolated from the brooming plant Dyer's Genista tinctoria L. and is widely distributed in the Fabaceae family. As an isoflavone, mammalian genistein exerts estrogen-like functions. Several biological effects of genistein have been reported in preclinical studies, such as the antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, antibacterial, and antiviral activities, the effects of angiogenesis and estrogen, and the pharmacological activities on diabetes and lipid metabolism. The purpose of this review is to provide up-to-date evidence of preclinical pharmacological activities with mechanisms of action, bioavailability, and clinical evidence of genistein. The literature was researched using the most important keyword "genistein" from the PubMed, Science, and Google Scholar databases, and the taxonomy was validated using The Plant List. Data were also collected from specialized books and other online resources. The main positive effects of genistein refer to the protection against cardiovascular diseases and to the decrease of the incidence of some types of cancer, especially breast cancer. Although the mechanism of protection against cancer involves several aspects of genistein metabolism, the researchers attribute this effect to the similarity between the structure of soy genistein and that of estrogen. This structural similarity allows genistein to displace estrogen from cellular receptors, thus blocking their hormonal activity. The pharmacological activities resulting from the experimental studies of this review support the traditional uses of genistein, but in the future, further investigations are needed on the efficacy, safety, and use of nanotechnologies to increase bioavailability and therapeutic efficacy.
Bergapten (BP) or 5-methoxypsoralen (5-MOP) is a furocoumarin compound mainly found in bergamot essential oil but also in other citrus essential oils and grapefruit juice. This compound presents antibacterial, anti-inflammatory, hypolipemic, and anticancer effects and is successfully used as a photosensitizing agent. The present review focuses on the research evidence related to the therapeutic properties of bergapten collected in recent years. Many preclinical and in vitro studies have been evidenced the therapeutic action of BP; however, few clinical trials have been carried out to evaluate its efficacy. These clinical trials with BP are mainly focused on patients suffering from skin disorders such as psoriasis or vitiligo. In these trials, the administration of BP (oral or topical) combined with UV irradiation induces relevant lesion clearance rates. In addition, beneficial effects of bergamot extract were also observed in patients with altered serum lipid profiles and in people with nonalcoholic fatty liver. On the contrary, there are no clinical trials that investigate the possible effects on cancer. Although the bioavailability of BP is lower than that of its 8-methoxypsoralen (8-MOP) isomer, it has fewer side effects allowing higher concentrations to be administered. In conclusion, although the use of BP has therapeutic applications on skin disorders as a sensitizing agent and as components of bergamot extract as hypolipemic therapy, more trials are necessary to define the doses and treatment guidelines and its usefulness against other pathologies such as cancer or bacterial infections.
In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field.