PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

M Zeiger

Publications and source records attributed to M Zeiger.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

Inducing effects of dioxin-like polychlorinated biphenyls on CYP1A in the human hepatoblastoma cell line HepG2, the rat hepatoma cell line H4IIE, and rat primary hepatocytes: comparison of relative potencies.

Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are a group of widespread environmental pollutants. Some non-ortho-substituted congeners with a high likelihood of coplanarity of both aromatic rings have been shown to act like 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) as agonists of the aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AhR) subsequently leading to adverse effects, such as immunosuppression and tumor promotion. Although there is a broad base of experimental data concerning the toxicity of PCBs in laboratory animals and animal-derived primary cells and cell lines, only few experimental data are available for cells of human origin. As a parameter of AhR activation, induction of CYP1A-mediated 7-ethoxyresorufin O-deethylase (EROD) activity was determined in the human hepatoblastoma cell line HepG2 treated with the PCBs IUPAC Nos. 77, 81, 105, 114, 118, 123, 126, 156, 157, 167, 169, and 189, and with TCDD as a positive control. Compared with results in rat primary hepatocytes and the rat hepatoma cell line H4IIE, treated HepG2 cells showed lower specific EROD activities maximally inducible by TCDD and PCBs, and EC50 values were shifted to higher concentrations. Furthermore, relative potency factors (REPs) for some congeners such as PCBs 81, 126, and 169 greatly differed from those observed in cells derived from rats. Northern blot analyses showed that EROD activities run parallel to changes in CYP1A-specific mRNA contents. The considerable differences in EROD-derived REPs between cells of human and rat origin indicate the need for further investigations in experimental models from different species including humans in order to extend the database of biochemical and toxic responses to PCBs.

Animals↗

Telling a clear story in a clinical anaesthesiology paper.

Why is a scientific paper necessary? Why not just publish figures and tables? The reason is that the paper tells the story behind the figures and tables. Although some readers can construct the story from looking at the figures and tables, most readers need the paper to explain the story to them. The story in a scientific paper has four parts, each corresponding to one of the four sections of the paper. The four parts are the question that was asked (Introduction), what was done to answer the question (Materials and methods), what was found that answers the question (Results), and the answer to the question (Discussion). In addition to these four essential parts, the story includes background information on the topic (Introduction) and an explanation of how the answer fits in with previous work (Discussion). This article illustrates how to tell a clear story in the four sections of a clinical anaesthesiology paper. Examples are based on papers in the March 1993 and July 1992 issues of this journal. All four parts of one paper are included, to give a sense of one complete story. Introduction The story in a scientific paper beings in the Introduction. The most important statement in the Introduction is the question the study asks. The question is most important because it creates an expectation of the kind of answer that will be given in the Discussion and of the type of methods and results that will be described. That is, the question provides a focus for the paper.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Anesthesiology↗