Search

Kaempferol (kae) and its glycosides are widely distributed in nature and show multiple bioactivities, yet few reports have compared them. In this paper, we report the antitumor, antioxidant and anti-inflammatory activity differences of kae, kae-7-O-glucoside (kae-7-O-glu), kae-3-O-rhamnoside (kae-3-O-rha) and kae-3-O-rutinoside (kae-3-O-rut). Kae showed the highest antiproliferation effect on the human hepatoma cell line HepG2, mouse colon cancer cell line CT26 and mouse melanoma cell line B16F1. Kae also significantly inhibited AKT phosphorylation and cleaved caspase-9, caspase-7, caspase-3 and PARP in HepG2 cells. A kae-induced increase in DPPH and ABTS radical scavenging activity, inhibition of concanavalin A (Con A)-induced activation of T cell proliferation and NO or ROS production in LPS-induced RAW 264.7 macrophage cells were also seen. Kae glycosides were used to produce kae via environment-friendly enzymatic hydrolysis. Kae-7-O-glu and kae-3-O-rut were hydrolyzed to kae by β-glucosidase and/or α-L-rhamnosidase. This paper demonstrates the application of enzymatic catalysis to obtain highly biologically active kae. This work provides a novel and efficient preparation of high-value flavone-related products. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Oncolytic virus (OV) is a replication competent virus that selectively invades cancer cells; as these cells die under the viral burden, the released virus particles proceed to infect other cancer cells. Oncolytic viruses are designed to also be able to stimulate the anticancer immune response. Thus, one may represent an OV by two parameters: its replication potential and its immunogenicity. In this paper we consider a combination therapy with OV and a checkpoint inhibitor, anti-PD-1. We evaluate the efficacy of the combination therapy in terms of the tumor volume at some later time, for example, 6 months from initial treatment. Since T cells kill not only virus-free cancer cells but also virus-infected cancer cells, the following question arises: Does increasing the amount of the checkpoint inhibitor always improve the efficacy? We address this question, by a mathematical model consisting of a system of partial differential equations. We use the model to construct, by simulations, an efficacy map in terms of the doses of the checkpoint inhibitor and the OV injection. We show that there are regions in the map where an increase in the checkpoint inhibitor actually decreases the efficacy of the treatment. We also construct efficacy maps with checkpoint inhibitor vs. the replication potential of the virus that show the same antagonism, namely, an increase in the checkpoint inhibitor may actually decrease the efficacy. These results have implications for clinical trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper we consider a combination therapy of cancer. One drug is a vaccine which activates dendritic cells so that they induce more T cells to infiltrate the tumor. The other drug is a checkpoint inhibitor, which enables the T cells to remain active against the cancer cells. The two drugs are positively correlated in the sense that an increase in the amount of each drug results in a reduction in the tumor volume. We consider the question whether a treatment with combination of the two drugs at certain levels is preferable to a treatment by one of the drugs alone at ‘roughly’ twice the dosage level; if that is the case, then we say that there is a positive ‘synergy’ for this combination of dosages. To address this question, we develop a mathematical model using a system of partial differential equations. The variables include dendritic and cancer cells, CD4+ and CD8+ T cells, IL-12 and IL-2, GM-CSF produced by the vaccine, and a T cell checkpoint inhibitor associated with PD-1. We use the model to explore the efficacy of the two drugs, separately and in combination, and compare the simulations with data from mouse experiments. We next introduce the concept of synergy between the drugs and develop a synergy map which suggests in what proportion to administer the drugs in order to achieve the maximum reduction of tumor volume under the constraint of maximum tolerated dose. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]