Optimization of production medium is required to maximize the metabolite yield. This can be achieved by using a wide range of techniques from classical “one-factor-at-a-time” to modern statistical and mathematical techniques, viz. artificial neural network (ANN), genetic algorithm (GA) etc. Every technique comes with its own advantages and disadvantages, and despite drawbacks some techniques are applied to obtain best results. Use of various optimization techniques in combination also provides the desirable results. In this article an attempt has been made to review the currently used media optimization techniques applied during fermentation process of metabolite production. Comparative analysis of the merits and demerits of various conventional as well as modern optimization techniques have been done and logical selection basis for the designing of fermentation medium has been given in the present review. Overall, this review will provide the rationale for the selection of suitable optimization technique for media designing employed during the fermentation process of metabolite production.

No abstract

No abstract

Introduction: Health-related quality of life (HQL) parameters have never been tested in patients having chondromas/chondrosarcomas who are being treated with protons. The aim of this study was to document changes in HQL of chordoma/chondrosarcoma patients treated with proton beam radiotherapy. Treatments commenced in September 2011 at CNAO, and HQL studies were initiated in January 2012 for all patients undergoing treatment. Methods: The validated Italian translation of the EORTC QLQ-C30 version 3.0 was used for HQL evaluation. The HQL assessments were made prior to starting radiation and at completion of treatment. Scoring was as per the EORTC manual. As per standard norms, a difference of >10 points in the mean scores was taken to be clinically meaningful. Results: Between January and September 2012, 17 patients diagnosed with chordoma or chondrosarcoma, with a mean ± SD age of 49.5 ± 16.4 years, had completed treatment. The involved sites were skull base (n = 12) and sacral/paraspinal (n = 5). The prescribed dose was 70–74 GyE at 2 GyE per fraction, 5 days/week. When comparing pre- and post-treatment scores, neither a clinically meaningful nor a statistically significant change was documented. Conclusions: During treatment, HQL is not adversely affected by protons, allowing normal life despite the long course of treatment. This is an ongoing study and more long-term assessment will help evaluate the actual impact of proton therapy on HQL for these slow-responding tumours.