No abstract

Abstract. The selenoprotein phospholipid hydroperoxide glutathione peroxidase (PHGPx) is highly expressed in testes under gonadotropin control. The expression patterns of PHGPx mRNA by 17β-estradiol (E2) as an estrogen and tamoxifen (Tam) as an estrogen antagonist were investigated in the reproductive organs of male rats. Twelve-week-old male Sprague-Dawley rats were subcutaneously injected with E2 (7.5 µg/kg/day) or Tam (5 mg/kg/day) for 1 week. The E2 treatment significantly increased the levels of PHGPx mRNA in both testes and prostates, whereas the Tam treatment significantly decreased the levels of PHGPx mRNA, compared to the vehicle control (p<0.01). The treatment with E2 or Tam slightly decreased the levels of PHGPx mRNA in epididymides. In histopathological examination, severe vacuolization and depletion of germ cells in the seminiferous tubules, cell debris in the tubular lumen, and mild proliferative changes in interstitial tissues were observed in the testes of Tam-treated rats, whereas only mild spermatogonial proliferation was observed in the seminiferous tubules of E2-treated rats. There were no typical histopathological changes in the epididymides of any of the laboratory rats but mild epithelial proliferation in the prostates of E2-and Tam-treated rats. These results suggest that PHGPx mRNA expression may be influenced by estrogen in the male reproductive organs.

Background In this study, a physical properties test and preclinical evaluation were performed on two polycaprolactone (PCL)‐based dermal filler formulas. Objective This study was performed to compare the rheological characteristics, preclinical efficacy, and safety of a new PCL filler, SF‐01, with a licensed PCL filler. Methods First, the viscoelasticity of the PCL filler was evaluated. Next, hairless mice were injected with fillers and evaluated for efficacy with a folliscope and PRIMOSLITE. Histological evaluation was conducted for 6 months to evaluate safety. Results In this evaluation, SF‐01 was superior to a licensed PCL filler in initial volume increase rate and in vivo durability, and the migration of the injected filler was not confirmed. The elasticity (G*, G′) and viscosity (G′′) are also expected to be lower than those of a licensed PCL filler, thereby resulting in less foreign body sensation in the living body. Conclusion SF‐01 (porous PCL microsphere–based dermal filler) has been confirmed to be superior in durability and shape retention compared to the licensed PCL filler (nonporous PCL microsphere–based dermal filler), and the in vivo safety is equivalent.