No abstract

Quantification of mycotoxins in foodstuffs is extremely difficult as a limited amount of toxins are known to be presented in the food samples. Mycotoxins are secondary toxic metabolites, made primarily by fungal species, contaminating feeds and foods. Due to the presence in globally used grains, it is an unpreventable problem that causes various acute and chronic impacts on human and animal health. Over the previous few years, however, progress has been made in mycotoxin analysis studies. Easier techniques of sample cleanup and advanced chromatographic approaches have been developed, primarily high-performance liquid chromatography. Few extremely sophisticated and adaptable tools such as high-resolution mass spectrometry and gas chromatography-tandem MS/MS have become more important. In addition, Immunoassay, Advanced quantitative techniques are now globally accepted for mycotoxin analysis. Thus, this review summarizes these traditional and highly advance methods and their characteristics for evaluating mycotoxins. K E Y W O R D Sadvanced quantitative techniques, chromatography, immunological, mycotoxins, spectroscopy 2184 | SINGH aNd MEHTa ultraviolet, fluorescence, photomultiplier, ion mobility, and tandem mass spectrophotometry, fourier transforms near infrared, adsorptive stripping voltammetry, and their lower detection limits, and sensitivity of different types of matrice has been reviewed. For the determination of mycotoxins, traditional quantitative methods viz. chromatography, immunological, and the advanced methods viz. ultrahigh-performance liquid chromatography, fluorescence polarization immunoassay, nanoparticle-based methods, microfluidics, and phage display methods have been discussed extensively in this review.

The BRMS1 metastasis suppressor interacts with the protein AT-rich interactive domain 4A (ARID4A, RBBP1) as part of SIN3⅐histone deacetylase chromatin remodeling complexes. These transcriptional co-repressors regulate diverse cell phenotypes depending upon complex composition. To define BRMS1 complexes and their roles in metastasis suppression, we generated BRMS1 mutants (BRMS1 mut ) and mapped ARID4A interactions. BRMS1L174D disrupted direct interaction with ARID4A in yeast two-hybrid genetic screens but retained an indirect association with ARID4A in MDA-MB-231 and -435 human breast cancer cell lines by co-immunoprecipitation. Deletion of the first coiled-coil domain (BRMS1 ⌬CC1 ) did not disrupt direct interaction in yeast two-hybrid screens but did prevent association by co-immunoprecipitation. These results suggest altered complex composition with BRMS1 mut . Although basal transcription repression was impaired and the pro-metastatic protein osteopontin was differentially down-regulated by BRMS1 L174D and BRMS1 ⌬CC1 , both down-regulated the epidermal growth factor receptor and suppressed metastasis in MDA-MB-231 and -435 breast cancer xenograft models. We conclude that BRMS1 mut , which modifies the composition of a SIN3⅐histone deacetylase chromatin remodeling complex, leads to altered gene expression profiles. Because metastasis requires the coordinate expression of multiple genes, down-regulation of at least one important gene, such as the epidermal growth factor receptor, had the ability to suppress metastasis. Understanding which interactions are necessary for particular biochemical/ cellular functions may prove important for future strategies targeting metastasis.The ability of a cancer cell to complete all steps of the metastatic cascade requires diverse tumor-host interactions that are dependent on the coordinate expression of specific genes both intrinsically and extrinsically (1-3). The metastasis suppressor BRMS1 3 has been shown to regulate the expression of multiple genes leading to the suppression of metastasis in multiple model systems, including human breast carcinoma (4, 5), melanoma (6), and ovarian carcinoma (7), without preventing orthotopic tumor growth. Specifically, down-regulation of the pro-metastatic genes osteopontin (OPN) and urokinase-type plasminogen activator has been linked to BRMS1 expression (8, 9). Gap junctional intercellular communication is restored by BRMS1 through a change in connexin expression (10). Microarray and proteomic analyses have also been performed showing multiple changes in gene and protein expression when BRMS1 was introduced (11-13). Clinically, loss of BRMS1 protein has been correlated with progesterone receptor expression and inversely correlated with HER2 expression in breast cancer patients (14).BRMS1 has been proposed to regulate transcription of genes by interaction with a large SIN3⅐HDAC chromatin remodeling complex through interaction with the protein AT-rich interactive domain 4A (ARID4A) that suppresses basal transcription in vivo using a Gal...

No abstract

Breast cancer metastasis suppressor 1 (BRMS1) is a member of the mSin3-HDAC transcription co-repressor complex. However, the proteins associated with BRMS1 have not been fully identified. Yeast two-hybrid screen, immuno-affinity chromatography, and co-immunoprecipitation experiments were performed to identify BRMS1 interacting proteins (BIPs). In addition to known core mSin3 transcriptional complex components RBBP1 and mSDS3, BRMS1 interacted with other proteins including three chaperones: DNAJB6 (MRJ), Hsp90, and Hsp70. Hsp90 is a known target of HDAC6 and reversible acetylation is one of the mechanisms that is implicated in regulation of Hsp90 chaperone complex activity. BRMS1 interacted with class II HDACs, HDAC 4, 5, and 6. We further found that BRMS1 is stabilized by Hsp90, and its turnover is proteasome dependent. The stability of BRMS1 protein may be important in maintaining the functional role of BRMS1 in metastasis suppression.