Imbricaric Acid and Perlatolic Acid: Multi-Targeting Anti-Inflammatory Depsides from Cetrelia monachorum

In vitro screening of 17 Alpine lichen species for their inhibitory activity against 5-lipoxygenase, microsomal prostaglandin E₂ synthase-1 and nuclear factor kappa B revealed Cetrelia monachorum (Zahlbr.) W.L. Culb. & C.F. Culb. As conceivable source for novel anti-inflammatory compounds. Phytochemical investigation of the ethanolic crude extract resulted in the isolation and identification of 11 constituents, belonging to depsides and derivatives of orsellinic acid, olivetolic acid and olivetol. The two depsides imbricaric acid (4) and perlatolic acid (5) approved dual inhibitory activities on microsomal prostaglandin E₂ synthase-1 (IC₅₀ = 1.9 and 0.4 µM, resp.) and on 5-lipoxygenase tested in a cell-based assay (IC₅₀ = 5.3 and 1.8 µM, resp.) and on purified enzyme (IC₅₀ = 3.5 and 0.4 µM, resp.). Additionally, these two main constituents quantified in the extract with 15.22% (4) and 9.10% (5) showed significant inhibition of tumor necrosis factor alpha-induced nuclear factor kappa B activation in luciferase reporter cells with IC₅₀ values of 2.0 and 7.0 µM, respectively. In a murine in vivo model of inflammation, 5 impaired the inflammatory, thioglycollate-induced recruitment of leukocytes to the peritoneum. The potent inhibitory effects on the three identified targets attest 4 and 5 a pronounced multi-target anti-inflammatory profile which warrants further investigation on their pharmacokinetics and in vivo efficacy.     

Survival of Murine Norovirus,Tulane Virus,and Hepatitis A Virus on Alfalfa Seeds and Sprouts during Storage and Germination

Human norovirus (huNoV) and hepatitis A virus (HAV) have been involved in several produce-associated outbreaks and identified as major food-borne viral etiologies. In this study, the survival of huNoV surrogates (murine norovirus [MNV] and Tulane virus [TV]) and HAV was investigated on alfalfa seeds during storage and postgermination. Alfalfa seeds were inoculated with MNV, TV, or HAV with titers of 6.46 ± 0.06 log PFU/g, 3.87 ± 0.38 log PFU/g, or 7.01 ± 0.07 log 50% tissue culture infectious doses (TCID₅₀)/g, respectively. Inoculated seeds were stored for up to 50 days at 22°C and sampled during that storage period on days 0, 2, 5, 10, and 15. Following storage, virus presence was monitored over a 1-week germination period. Viruses remained infectious after 50 days, with titers of 1.61 ± 0.19 log PFU/g, 0.85 ± 0.21 log PFU/g, and 3.43 ± 0.21 log TCID₅₀/g for MNV, TV, and HAV, respectively. HAV demonstrated greater persistence than MNV and TV, without a statistically significant reduction over 20 days (<1 log TCID₅₀/g); however, relatively high levels of genomic copies of all viruses persisted over the testing time period. Low titers of viruses were found on sprouts and were located in all tissues as well as in sprout-spent water sampled on days 1, 3, and 6 following seed planting. Results revealed the persistence of viruses in seeds for a prolonged period of time, and perhaps of greater importance these data suggest the ease of which virus may transfer from seeds to sprouts and spent water during germination. These findings highlight the importance of sanitation and prevention procedures before and during germination.     

Medical Device Industry Approaches for Addressing Sources of Failing Cytotoxicity Scores

To ensure patient safety, medical device manufacturers are required by the Food and Drug Administration and other regulatory bodies to perform biocompatibility evaluations on their devices per standards, such as the AAMI-approved ISO 10993-1:2018 (ANSI/AAMI/ISO 10993-1:2018).However, some of these biological tests (e.g., systemic toxicity studies) have long lead times and are costly, which may hinder the release of new medical devices. In recent years, an alternative method using a risk-based approach for evaluating the toxicity (or biocompatibility) profile of chemicals and materials used in medical devices has become more mainstream. This approach is used as a complement to or substitute for traditional testing methods (e.g., systemic toxicity endpoints). Regardless of the approach, the one test still used routinely in initial screening is the cytotoxicity test, which is based on an in vitro cell culture system to evaluate potential biocompatibility effects of the final finished form of a medical device. However, it is known that this sensitive test is not always compatible with specific materials and can lead to failing cytotoxicity scores and an incorrect assumption of potential biological or toxicological adverse effects. This article discusses the common culprits of in vitro cytotoxicity failures, as well as describes the regulatory-approved methodology for cytotoxicity testing and the approach of using toxicological risk assessment to address clinical relevance of cytotoxicity failures for medical devices. Further, discrepancies among test results from in vitro tests, use of published half-maximal inhibitory concentration data, and the derivation of their relationship to tolerable exposure limits, reference doses, or no observed adverse effect levels are highlighted to demonstrate that although cytotoxicity tests in general are regarded as a useful sensitive screening assays, specific medical device materials are not compatible with these cellular/in vitro systems. For these cases, the results should be analyzed using more clinically relevant approaches (e.g., through chemical analysis or written risk assessment).

Medical devices are engineered to be of durable construction and to accommodate the functionality needed for proper device application. The biocompatibility of the materials, as well as their processing, is also important to ensure that the patients are not negatively affected by the devices when they enter the clinical setting. Certain materials of constructions used for medical devices (and manufacturing processes or processing aids) may contain chemicals that can lead to failing cytotoxicity scores using traditional, regulatory-mandated methodologies. Examples of common materials include plastics (e.g., polyethylene or polypropylene [co]polymers, polyvinyl chloride [PVC]) and metals (e.g., nitinol, copper [Cu]-containing alloys). Although providing stable and reliable materials for use in relation to performance parameters, various metals/alloys and plastics may evoke undesired cytotoxic effects. These effects might be observed as reduced cellular activity or decay in the in vitro assay, especially when standard methods and test parameters (e.g., extraction ratios) are used.1,2To prevent adverse effects (e.g., toxicity, or other types of biocompatibility-related issues) from occurring among patients and clinical end users, manufacturers are required to perform biocompatibility evaluations per guidance provided in e.g., ANSI/AAMI/ISO 10993-1:2018.3 This standard provides an overall framework for the biological evaluation, emphasizing a risk-based approach, as well as general guidance on relevant tests for specific types of contact to patients or users. Of note, traditional biocompatibility tests, within the battery of both in vivo and in vitro methods, could take up to 6 months (or take years, in the case of long-term systemic toxicity testing). Lengthy turnaround times stem from in vivo test methods, which are performed on animal models and include irritation, sensitization, systemic toxicity, genotoxicity, and carcinogenicity studies. Traditional in vitro tests involve exposure of cells or cellular material to device extracts in order to characterize toxicity in terms of cytotoxicity, genotoxicity, cellular metabolic activity, and aspects of hemocompatibility.3In recent years, as a complement to or a substitute for traditional testing methods, a risk-based approach using a chemical and materials characterization for evaluation of patient safety has become mainstream. The framework for this approach is provided in ISO 10993-18:2020.4 Moreover, the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation (AAMI) and, by extension, regulatory bodies (including the Food and Drug Administration [FDA] and International Organization for Standardization [ISO]) have driven the use of chemical and material characterization. Particularly for medical devices in long-term contact with patient (e.g., implantable devices), use of chemical and material characterization can reduce unnecessary animal testing and provide results that are scientifically sound and detailed, while being more cost and time efficient. For example, ISO 10993-13 highlights that a correctly conducted risk assessment can provide justification to exclude long-term biological testing, where the nature and extent of exposure confirms that the patient is being exposed to very low levels of chemicals that are below relevant toxicological thresholds.3Throughout the ISO 10993 series, it also is emphasized that conducting animal testing for biological risk evaluation should only be considered after all alternative courses of action (review of prior knowledge, chemical or physical characterization, in vitro evaluations, or alternative means of mitigation) have been exhausted. In addition, analytical chemistry used for chemical characterization can be used as a means for investigating possible culprits when traditional biocompatibility tests, such as cytotoxicity tests, fail, especially in cases where a known substance(s) in the material has cytotoxic potential (e.g., silver-infused wound dressing that provides antibacterial properties).However, it should be kept in mind that although chemistry can be a powerful tool in many cases, not all medical devices extracts are compatible with the analytical methods and instruments used, and these studies may not provide the full understanding of the toxicity profile of the device. In those cases, animal testing or further justification may still be needed to demonstrate a safe biocompatibility profile for the device.Cytotoxicity testing per AAMI/ISO 10993-5:2009/(R)20145 has historically been one of the most used (and is considered the most reactive) of the biocompatibility tests6,7 and can be efficiently used to detect abnormal effects to cells that may arise if harmful chemicals are present in device extracts. However, it also is recognized that cell-based test methods do not necessarily correlate to in vivo toxicological effects and actual clinical patient safety, often showing a reaction when no clinical adverse effects are known or expected to occur. For instance, some soluble metal ions (e.g., Cu, nickel [Ni]) are known to exert toxic effects on cells in an in vitro setting; however, their presence in surgical instruments and implants has demonstrated high patient tolerance and negligible effects upon clinical use.This article provides a brief evaluation of the clinical impact of metals and plasticizers commonly used in medical device materials that may lead to patient exposure during the use of devices, with emphasis given to those that may result in cytotoxicity failures in an in vitro setting. In addition, an approach to evaluating valid clinical risks using a toxicological risk assessment is discussed.     

PYPAF7, a novel PYRIN-containing Apaf1-like protein that regulates activation of NF-kappa B and caspase-1-dependent cytokine processing

PYRIN-containing Apaf1-like proteins (PYPAFs) are members of the nucleotide-binding site/leucine-rich repeat (NBS/LRR) family of signal transduction proteins. We report here that PYPAF7 is a novel PYPAF protein that activates inflammatory signaling pathways. The expression of PYPAF7 is highly restricted to immune cells, and its gene maps to chromosome 19q13.4, a locus that contains a cluster of genes encoding numerous PYPAF family members. Co-expression of PYPAF7 with ASC results in the recruitment of PYPAF7 to distinct cytoplasmic loci and a potent synergistic activation of NF-kappa B. To identify other proteins involved in PYPAF7 and ASC signaling pathways, we performed a mammalian two-hybrid screen and identified pro-caspase-1 as a binding partner of ASC. Co-expression of PYPAF7 and ASC results in the synergistic activation of caspase-1 and a corresponding increase in secretion of interleukin-1 beta. In addition, PYPAF1 induces caspase-1-dependent cytokine processing when co-expressed with ASC. These findings indicate that PYPAF family members participate in inflammatory signaling by regulating the activation of NF-kappa B and cytokine processing.     

Metal Binding Is Critical for the Folding and Function of Laminin Binding Protein,Lmb of Streptococcus agalactiae

Lmb is a 34 kDa laminin binding surface adhesin of Streptococcus agalactiae. The structure of Lmb reported by us recently has shown that it consists of a metal binding crevice, in which a zinc ion is coordinated to three highly conserved histidines. To elucidate the structural and functional significance of the metal ion in Lmb, these histidines have been mutated to alanine and single, double and triple mutants were generated. These mutations resulted in insolubility of the protein and revealed altered secondary and tertiary structures, as evidenced by circular dichroism and fluorescence spectroscopy studies. The mutations also significantly decreased the binding affinity of Lmb to laminin, implicating the role played by the metal binding residues in maintaining the correct conformation of the protein for its binding to laminin. A highly disordered loop, proposed to be crucial for metal acquisition in homologous structures, was deleted in Lmb by mutation (ΔLmb) and its crystal structure was solved at 2.6 Å. The ΔLmb structure was identical to the native Lmb structure with a bound zinc ion and exhibited laminin binding activity similar to wild type protein, suggesting that the loop might not have an important role in metal acquisition or adhesion in Lmb. Targeted mutations of histidine residues confirmed the importance of the zinc binding crevice for the structure and function of the Lmb adhesin.