Search

Polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) is the most common endocrinological disorder in women, in which, besides chronic anovulation/oligomenorrhea and ovarian cysts, hyperandrogenism plays a critical role in a large fraction of subjects. Inositol isomers—myo-Inositol and D-Chiro-Inositol—have recently been pharmacologically effective in managing many PCOS symptoms while rescuing ovarian fertility. However, some disappointing clinical results prompted the reconsideration of their specific biological functions. Surprisingly, D-Chiro-Ins stimulates androgen synthesis and decreases the ovarian estrogen pathway; on the contrary, myo-Ins activates FSH response and aromatase activity, finally mitigating ovarian hyperandrogenism. However, when the two isomers are given in association—according to the physiological ratio of 40:1—patients could benefit from myo-Ins enhanced FSH and estrogen responsiveness, while taking advantage of the insulin-sensitizing effects displayed mostly by D-Chiro-Ins. We need not postulate insulin resistance to explain PCOS pathogenesis, given that insulin hypersensitivity is likely a shared feature of PCOS ovaries. Indeed, even in the presence of physiological insulin stimulation, the PCOS ovary synthesizes D-Chiro-Ins four times more than that measured in control theca cells. The increased D-Chiro-Ins within the ovary is detrimental in preserving steroidogenic control, and this failure can easily explain why treatment strategies based upon high D-Chiro-Ins have been recognized as poorly effective. Within this perspective, two factors emerge as major determinants in PCOS: hyperandrogenism and reduced aromatase expression. Therefore, PCOS could no longer be considered a disease only due to increased androgen synthesis without considering the contemporary downregulation of aromatase and FSH receptors. Furthermore, these findings suggest that inositols can be specifically effective only for those PCOS phenotypes featured by hyperandrogenism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The currently accepted theory on the influence of DNA mutations on carcinogenesis (the Somatic Mutation Theory, SMT) is facing an increasing number of controversial results that undermine the explanatory power of mutated genes considered as "causative" factors. Intriguing results have demonstrated that several critical genes may act differently, as oncogenes or tumor suppressors, while phenotypic reversion of cancerous cells/tissues can be achieved by modifying the microenvironment, the mutations they are carrying notwithstanding. Furthermore, a high burden of mutations has been identified in many non-cancerous tissues without any apparent pathological consequence. All things considered, a relevant body of unexplained inconsistencies calls for an in depth rewiring of our theoretical models. Ignoring these paradoxes is no longer sustainable. By avoiding these conundrums, the scientific community will deprive itself of the opportunity to achieve real progress in this important biomedical field. To remedy this situation, we need to embrace new theoretical perspectives, taking the cell–microenvironment interplay as the privileged pathogenetic level of observation, and by assuming new explanatory models based on truly different premises. New theoretical frameworks dawned in the last two decades principally focus on the complex interaction between cells and their microenvironment, which is thought to be the critical level from which carcinogenesis arises. Indeed, both molecular and biophysical components of the stroma can dramatically drive cell fate commitment and cell outcome in opposite directions, even in the presence of the same stimulus. Therefore, such a novel approach can help in solving apparently inextricable paradoxes that are increasingly observed in cancer biology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]