No abstract

Extracellular ATP (ATPo) and adenosine are cytotoxic to several cancer cell lines, suggesting their potential use for anticancer therapy. Adenosine causes cytotoxicity, either when added exogenously or when generated from ATPo hydrolysis, via mechanisms which are not mutually exclusive and which involve, adenosine receptor activation, pyrimidine starvation and/or increases in intracellular S-adenosylhomocysteine: S-adenosylmethionine ratio. Given that adenosine also appears to protect against cytotoxicity via mechanisms including immunity against damage by oxygen free radicals, an understanding of the contribution of adenosine to ATPo-induced cytotoxicity is thus crucial, when considering any potential therapeutic use for these compounds. However, such an understanding has been largely hindered by the fact that many studies have not focused enough on the possibility that both ATPo and adenosine may mediate cytotoxicity in the same system. Such studies can benefit from use a range of ATPo concentrations when assessing the contribution of adenosine to ATPo-induced cytotoxicity. Whilst future molecular and pharmacological studies are needed to establish the nature of the cytotoxic adenosine receptor, it is possible that more than just one adenosine receptor type is involved and that the cytotoxic receptor(s) type is more likely to have a low affinity for adenosine. Activation of the adenosine receptor(s) would thus lead to cytotoxicity only at relatively high adenosine concentrations, while lower adenosine concentrations mediate non-cytotoxic physiological effects.

The aim was to determine the performances of four Helicobacter pylori serological detection kits in different target groups, using Amplified IDEIA™ Hp StAR™ as gold standard. Kits studied were Rapid Immunochromatoghraphic Hexagon, Helicoblot 2.1, an EIA IgG kit and EIA IgA kit. Methods: Stool and blood samples were collected from 162 apparently healthy participants (control) and 60 Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients. Results: The performances of the four serological detection kits were found to be affected by gender, age, health status and ethnicity of the participants. In the control group, the Helicoblot 2.1 kit had the best performance (AUC = 0.85; p<0.05, accuracy = 86.4%), followed by EIA IgG (AUC = 0.75; p<0.05, accuracy = 75.2%). The Rapid Hexagon and EIA IgA kits had relatively poor performances. In the T2DM subgroup, the kits H2.1 and EIA IgG had best performances, with accuracies of 96.5% and 93.1% respectively. The performance of EIA IgG improved with adjustment of its cut-off value. Conclusion: The performances of the detection kits were affected by various factors which should be taken into consideration.