5 Star
.
  • .
    .
    Fig 5. Treatment with PARP1 inhibitor improved mitochondrial biogenesis in chagasic mice.

    C57BL/6 mice were infected with T. cruzi, treated with PJ34 (12.5 mg/100-?l/mouse, intraperitoneally, twice a week for three weeks beginning at 45 days’ pi, and sacrificed at 150 days’ pi. (A) RT-qPCR evaluation of myocardial level of PARP1 mRNA, normalized to GAPDH mRNA (n ? 5 mice/group, triplicate observations per mouse). (B-E) Representative Western blot images of myocardial level of PARP1 with GAPDH loading control (n = 3 mice/group) and PAR levels in mice treated with increasing concentration of PJ34 (0–25 mg/kg) are shown in B & D, respectively. Densitometry analysis was performed for all Western blot gels from n ? 6 mice/group, and PARP1 and PAR levels (normalized to GAPDH levels) are shown in C & E, respectively. (F&G) Representative gel images (F, n = 3 mice/group) show myocardial levels of 10 kb mtDNA with 177-bp mtDNA and 96-bp GAPDH (nuDNA) fragments as controls. The PCR amplification was performed for 28 cycles. Densitometry analysis was performed on PCR gels representing n ? 6 mice/group, and density of the 10 kb mtDNA band, normalized against mtDNA and nuDNA fragments, is presented (G.a&b). (H-O) Bar graphs (n ? 5 mice/group, duplicate or triplicate observations per sample) show the myocardial (H-K & N) and plasma (L, M & O) levels of H2O2 (H), 3-nitrotyrosine (I), protein carbonyls (J&L), lipid hydroperoxides (K&M) and antioxidant capacity (N&O). (P) Myocardial parasite burden in chronically infected (± PJ34 treatment) mice was determined by qPCR amplification of Tc18SrDNA and normalized with GAPDH (n? 5 mice/group, three observations per mouse). Data in all bar graphs are plotted as mean value ± SEM, and statistical significance are marked as *infected vs. control and #infected/PJ34-treated vs. infected/untreated (*,#p<0.05, **,##p<0.01, ***,###p<0.01).

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1007065.g005

    .
    .
    .
    .

    Most liked

    .

    Tips for Telehealth Success

    http://game-rapidshare.com/Harnish-brother-of-Jenks-from-Demidovskiy?Mehserled=244
    .

    Think your cooking oil is safe and healthy? Canola oil producers claim that it’s the healthiest oil you can use, but science begs to differ. Unless significant weight gain and diminished memory are your idea of good health!

    Canola oil has been heralded as a modern healthy alternative to olive oil, and ‘saturated fats’ like coconut and palm oil, backed by a big promotional push from North American growers. The Canola Council of Canada pulls no punches, calling it “the healthiest of all commonly used cooking oils.”[1] The marketing campaign appears to be working: canola oil consumption in the United States has nearly tripled since 2000, up to almost 3 million metric tons in 2017.[2]

    When asked if canola oil is the same as rapeseed oil, the answer is both “yes” and “no.” Canola oil comes from the rapeseed plant, and was called rapeseed oil until the early 1970s, when a promotional campaign to rebrand the oil was devised in conjunction with genetic-modification to remove two of the plant’s undesirable elements, erucic acid and glucosinolates.

    .
    .
    Obesity and being overweight, linked to poor diet and lack of exercise, causes 3,917 deaths by cancer a year on its own
    .
    .
    .
    .