Development of Cu(II) 4-hydroxybenzoylhydrazone complexes that induce mitochondrial DNA damage and mitochondria-mediated apoptosis in liver cancer.

Cisplatin remains the most widely used chemotherapeutic agent in cancer treatment; however, its inherent drawbacks have fueled the development of novel metalloanticancer drugs. In this study, two novel Cu(II) complexes (Cu1 and Cu2) were designed and synthesized. Notably, these Cu(II) complexes showed higher cytotoxicity against HL-7402 cells than cisplatin. Moreover, Cu(II) complexes significantly inhibited liver cancer growth in a xenograft model. A mechanism study revealed that the Cu(II) complexes reduced the mitochondrial membrane potential of cancer cells, produced excessive reactive oxygen species (ROS), induced mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) damage, and ultimately facilitated cancer cell apoptosis.

Anticancer Activity and Mode of Action of Cu(II), Zn(II), and Mn(II) Complexes with 5-Chloro-2-N-(2-quinolylmethylene)aminophenol.

Developing a new generation of anticancer metal-based drugs that can both kill tumor cells and inhibit cell migration is a promising strategy. Herein, we synthesized three Cu(II), Zn(II), and Mn(II) complexes derived from 5-chloro-2-N-(2-quinolylmethylene)aminophenol (C1-C3). Among these complexes, the Cu(II) complex (C1) showed significantly greater cytotoxicity toward lung cancer cell lines than cisplatin. C1 inhibited A549 cell metastasis and suppressed the growth of the A549 tumor in vivo. In addition, we confirmed the anticancer mechanism of C1 by triggering multiple mechanisms, including inducing mitochondrial apoptosis, acting on DNA, blocking cell cycle arrest, inducing cell senescence, and inducing DNA damage.

Outcomes of sonographically-suspected fetal intra-abdominal cysts: Surgical intervention, conservative management and spontaneous regression.

Objective: The prenatal diagnosis of fetal intra-abdominal cysts is challenging. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic ability of prenatal ultrasound for fetal intra-abdominal cysts and to develop a predictive method for pre- and postnatal outcomes. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed fetuses with ultrasound-detected intra-abdominal cysts between January 2013 and January 2020. The maternal-fetal clinical characteristics and ultrasound parameters were integrated into a model of pre- or postnatal outcomes. Results: The study enrolled 190 eligible fetuses, including 94 cases of spontaneous regression, 33 cases of conservative management and 63 cases of surgical intervention. For the 63 cases of surgical intervention, prenatal ultrasound was found to identify fetal intra-abdominal cysts with 80.00% sensitivity (95% CI: 67.03%-89.57%), 37.50% specificity (95% CI: 8.52%-75.51%), 89.80% positive predictive value (95% CI: 83.51%-93.86%), 21.43% negative predictive value (95% CI: 8.80%-43.53%) and 74.60% accuracy (95% CI: 62.06%-84.73%). The predictive model of prenatal spontaneous regression was as follows: y = -3.291 + 0.083 × gestational age + 1.252 × initial diameter, with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.819 (95% CI: 0.739-0.899) and an optimal cut-off value of 0.74. The large cyst diameter before delivery was an independent predictor of postnatal surgical intervention (p < 0.001), with an AUC of 0.710 (95% CI: 0.625-0.794) and an optimal cut-off value of 3.35 cm. Conclusion: Although ultrasound has a limited ability in the accurate diagnosis of fetal abdominal cysts, a simple method of measuring the diameter can predict fetal outcomes and identify the cases that may require surgical intervention or spontaneous regression.

Role of prenatal imaging in the diagnosis and management of fetal facio-cervical masses.

Congenital facio-cervical masses can be a developmental anomaly of cystic, solid, or vascular origin, and have an inseparable relationship with adverse prognosis. This retrospective cross-sectional study aimed at determining on the prenatal diagnosis of congenital facio-cervical masses, its management and outcome in a large tertiary referral center. We collected information on prenatal clinical data, pregnancy outcomes, survival information, and final diagnosis. Out of 130 cases of facio-cervical masses, a total of 119 cases of lymphatic malformations (LMs), 2 cases of teratoma, 2 cases of thyroglossal duct cyst, 4 cases of hemangioma, 1 case of congenital epulis, and 2 cases of dermoid cyst were reviewed. The accuracy of prenatal ultrasound was 93.85% (122/130). Observations of diameters using prenatal ultrasound revealed that the bigger the initial diameter is, the bigger the relative change during pregnancy. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) revealed that 2 cases of masses were associated with airway compression. In conclusion, ultrasound has a high overall diagnostic accuracy of fetal face and neck deformities. Prenatal US can enhance the management of ambulatory monitoring and classification. Furthermore, MRI provided a detailed assessment of fetal congenital malformations, as well as visualization of the trachea, presenting a multi-dimensional anatomical relationship.

Journal Impact Factor: Do the Numerator and Denominator Need Correction?

To correct the incongruence of document types between the numerator and denominator in the traditional impact factor (IF), we make a corresponding adjustment to its formula and present five corrective IFs: IFTotal/Total, IFTotal/AREL, IFAR/AR, IFAREL/AR, and IFAREL/AREL. Based on a survey of researchers in the fields of ophthalmology and mathematics, we obtained the real impact ranking of sample journals in the minds of peer experts. The correlations between various IFs and questionnaire score were analyzed to verify their journal evaluation effects. The results show that it is scientific and reasonable to use five corrective IFs for journal evaluation for both ophthalmology and mathematics. For ophthalmology, the journal evaluation effects of the five corrective IFs are superior than those of traditional IF: the corrective effect of IFAR/AR is the best, IFAREL/AR is better than IFTotal/Total, followed by IFTotal/AREL, and IFAREL/AREL. For mathematics, the journal evaluation effect of traditional IF is superior than those of the five corrective IFs: the corrective effect of IFTotal/Total is best, IFAREL/AR is better than IFTotal/AREL and IFAREL/AREL, and the corrective effect of IFAR/AR is the worst. In conclusion, not all disciplinary journal IF need correction. The results in the current paper show that to correct the IF of ophthalmologic journals may be valuable, but it seems to be meaningless for mathematic journals.

An Analysis of Peer-Reviewed Scores and Impact Factors with Different Citation Time Windows: A Case Study of 28 Ophthalmologic Journals.

BACKGROUND: An important attribute of the traditional impact factor was the controversial 2-year citation window. So far, several scholars have proposed using different citation time windows for evaluating journals. However, there is no confirmation whether a longer citation time window would be better. How did the journal evaluation effects of 3IF, 4IF, and 6IF comparing with 2IF and 5IF? In order to understand these questions, we made a comparative study of impact factors with different citation time windows with the peer-reviewed scores of ophthalmologic journals indexed by Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) database. METHODS: The peer-reviewed scores of 28 ophthalmologic journals were obtained through a self-designed survey questionnaire. Impact factors with different citation time windows (including 2IF, 3IF, 4IF, 5IF, and 6IF) of 28 ophthalmologic journals were computed and compared in accordance with each impact factor's definition and formula, using the citation analysis function of the Web of Science (WoS) database. An analysis of the correlation between impact factors with different citation time windows and peer-reviewed scores was carried out. RESULTS: Although impact factor values with different citation time windows were different, there was a high level of correlation between them when it came to evaluating journals. In the current study, for ophthalmologic journals' impact factors with different time windows in 2013, 3IF and 4IF seemed the ideal ranges for comparison, when assessed in relation to peer-reviewed scores. In addition, the 3-year and 4-year windows were quite consistent with the cited peak age of documents published by ophthalmologic journals. RESEARCH LIMITATIONS: Our study is based on ophthalmology journals and we only analyze the impact factors with different citation time window in 2013, so it has yet to be ascertained whether other disciplines (especially those with a later cited peak) or other years would follow the same or similar patterns. ORIGINALITY/ VALUE: We designed the survey questionnaire ourselves, specifically to assess the real influence of journals. We used peer-reviewed scores to judge the journal evaluation effect of impact factors with different citation time windows. The main purpose of this study was to help researchers better understand the role of impact factors with different citation time windows in journal evaluation.