Phytochemicals induce apoptosis by modulation of nitric oxide signaling pathway in cervical cancer cells.

OBJECTIVE: Nitric Oxide (NO) is produced by NO synthases (NOS) and is a key signaling molecule that regulates tumorigenesis, both aiding and alleviating it. Elevated NO levels are cytotoxic to cancer cells, making NOS an important target for cancer treatment. In the present study, the modulatory effects of the phytochemicals, quercetin, sulforaphane, genistein, and epigallocatechin-3-gallate on NO pathway and apoptosis were shown in HeLa cervical cancer cells. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fluorescent microscopy and flow cytometry were used to assess apoptosis. A Griess assay was used to quantitatively measure NO, quantitative PCR array was used to assess the expression levels of genes involved in the NO signaling pathway, and immunocytochemistry was used to determine NOS protein expression. The functional association among the modulated genes was evaluated using network biology analysis, gene set enrichment, and KEGG pathway analysis. RESULTS: Treatment with the phytochemicals elevated NO levels in HeLa cells and modulated various genes involved in nitric oxide biosynthesis, superoxide metabolism, and oxidative stress, including NOS1, NOS2, NOS3, ALOX12, and SOD2, with a concomitant increase in NOS2 and NOS3 protein expression levels; also, the phytochemicals were found to induce apoptosis. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that the phytochemical-induced cell death is partially attributed to the activation of the NO pathway and upregulation of pro-oxidant ROS generators. Further experimental studies are required to explore this mechanistic association of NO signaling pathway activation and induction of apoptosis in other types of cancer.

Importance of cannulated prolactin test in the definition of hyperprolactinaemia.

PURPOSE: Recent guidelines suggest that a single prolactin measurement is adequate to confirm hyperprolactinaemia. This may lead to unnecessary investigation of artefactual hyperprolactinaemia. Prolactin measurement drawn from an indwelling cannula after rest removes stress as a confounding variable. The objective was to determine the frequency of true hyperprolactinaemia amongst patients referred following a single prolactin measurement. METHODS: A cannulated study was considered if prolactin on referral ('Referral Prolactin') was <5,500 mU/L (260 ng/mL) but >410 mU/L (19 ng/mL) in males or >510 mU/L (24 ng/mL) in females, irrespective of clinical context. Case-notes of 267 patients undergoing cannulated prolactin measurement over a 10-year period (2000-2010) were reviewed. Pre-existing pituitary disease, dopamine antagonist use, and macroprolactinaemia were excluded. Morning ante-cubital vein cannulation was followed immediately by withdrawal of 'Repeat Prolactin' sample. After 120-min bed-rest, 'Resting Prolactin' was withdrawn through the cannula. RESULTS: 235 patients were included for analysis. 64 (27%) were within normal range; following Repeat Prolactin in 41 (17%) and Resting Prolactin in 23 (9%) cases. Referral Prolactin was higher in patients with true hyperprolactinaemia, 1,637 ± 100 mU/L (77.2 ± 4.7 ng/mL) than with artefactual hyperprolactinaemia, 1,122 ± 68 mU/L (52.9 ± 3.2 ng/mL; P < 0.001) but there was substantial overlap. 21 out of 171 cases (12%) with true hyperprolactinaemia had a macroadenoma. Presenting symptoms did not predict true hyperprolactinaemia. Referral Prolactin of 2,000 mU/L (94 ng/mL) had 97% specificity to identify true hyperprolactinaemia. CONCLUSIONS: Reliance on a single, non-rested prolactin value may lead to over-diagnosis of hyperprolactinaemia. A resting sample should be considered with random values <2,000 mU/L (94 ng/mL).