A tutorial translation of the description of the historically first polymer drug conjugate and its in vivo evaluation.

Preamble Polymer-drug conjugates have been intensively investigated for several decades, and even though their clinical success still lags behind the promise many researchers have placed in them, they are a mainstay in the fields of polymer therapeutics or nanomedicine. For many in the field, the seminal perspective paper by Helmut Ringsdorf from 1975 marks the beginning of this field of research. With more than one thousand citations, this paper has indubitably affected and inspired generations of researchers in the field, including the author of this translation. However, it is not the first paper describing the concept of polymer-drug conjugates. Some twenty years earlier, Horst Jatzkewitz described in two outstanding articles probably the historically first polymer-drug conjugates, detailed its synthesis, characterization and even first in vivo experiments. The results, carefully re-interpreted through the eyes of a scientist of the 21st century, clearly highlight several issues that need to be taken into consideration when designing polymer-drug conjugates. However, despite the pioneering nature of this paper, it is all but forgotten by the scientific community. In the author's opinion, Horst Jatzkewitz and these papers clearly did not receive the attention and praise they deserve. Whether this was because these paper were much ahead of it´s time, or because it was published in German language, or for some other reason, we cannot know. However, these papers are, in my opinion, an excellent piece of work that should be known more widely and available to students and experts world-wide, which is why the author decided to translate it. Also, to give some more context and to help understand some outdated terms or concepts, additional comments and explanations are added throughout. I hope that this will help for these papers to receive the attention I believe they deserve.

Academic Journals Assessed as Springboards for New Developments: A Study of Leading Anesthesia Journals Over Past 50 Years.

PURPOSE: The impact of academic journals on scientific activity can be measured using different approaches. The aim of this study was to assess the leading anesthesia journals as springboards for new developments in the field of anesthesia. METHODS: The selection of the topics for analysis was based on the degree of increase in the number of articles on a topic that was at the center of specialty interest during 1966-2015. The assessment of a journal's response to a new development was made by measuring the number of initial articles on a related topic. Six leading anesthesia journals were assessed collectively and individually as to whether their responses to new developments were prompt and prominent. RESULTS: The role of the leading specialty journals in presentation of 28 topics related to prominent new developments in anesthesia was found to depend on the nature of topics and the type of articles. Compared with all PubMed journals publishing articles associated with anesthesia in 1966-2015, the six leading anesthesia journals published 43% of drug-related research articles, 30% of technique-related research articles, and 16% of both drug- and technique-related review articles. Regarding initial publications (on new topics), this group of six journals contributed comparably more articles: from 43% to 84% of drug-related research articles, from 30% to 49% of technique-related research articles, from 16% to 33% of drug-related review articles, and from 16% to 25% of technique-related review articles. The approximate doubling of the shares demonstrates the dominance of this group of journals in the swiftness response to new anesthesia developments. The promptness of reaction to new developments in anesthesia of each of the six leading anesthesia journals was assessed (the combination of drug- and technique-related articles) based on the number of articles published among the first (first 5 plus next 30) on all 28 topics. The ranking order of four journals (with the highest number of all 1966-2015 articles) regarding early publications was (from high to low): Anesthesia & Analgesia, British Journal of Anaesthesia, Anesthesiology, and Anaesthesia. CONCLUSION: This study assesses six leading anesthesia journals for their function as springboards for new developments in anesthesia over the past 50 years. The dominance of leading journals in initial publications on 28 drug-related and technique-related topics was clearly demonstrated. The results also indicate the possibility of using promptness of response to new advances for quantitative assessment of this aspect of a journal's contribution to the specialty.

Research trends in flavonoids and health.

Herein we describe, based on some bibliometric data, how the field of research on flavonoids has evolved over the last 25 years. The number of papers on flavonoids has risen in an exponential manner over these years, much faster than other fields on food constituents. This increase appears to be related to the contemporary explosion of interest in healthy foods, supplements and nutraceuticals. It was also probably triggered by large epidemiological studies on fruits and vegetables, and particularly on flavonoids, consumption and incidence of cancer, stroke and coronary heart disease. The widely distributed flavonols constitute the flavonoid subgroup upon which the greatest interest has been focused, followed by flavanols and more recently by anthocyanidins and other related polyphenols such as resveratrol. Research on isoflavones rapidly emerged in the 1990s but plateaued in the 2000s. In the 1990s flavonoids were mainly considered as the active components of medicinal plants, while from 2000 onward, they switched to be mainly regarded as bioactive food ingredients. We envision a continuation in the growth of research for the coming decade focused on clearly demonstrating the importance of flavonoids for human health.

Prohibited or regulated? LSD psychotherapy and the United States Food and Drug Administration.

Over the 1950s and early 1960s, the use of the hallucinogenic drug lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) to facilitate psychotherapy was a promising field of psychiatric research in the USA. However, during the 1960s, research began to decline, before coming to a complete halt in the mid-1970s. This has commonly been explained through the increase in prohibitive federal regulations during the 1960s that aimed to curb the growing recreational use of the drug. However, closely examining the Food and Drug Administration's regulation of LSD research in the 1960s will reveal that not only was LSD research never prohibited, but that the administration supported research to a greater degree than has been recognized. Instead, the decline in research reflected more complex changes in the regulation of pharmaceutical research and development.