Valproate and lithium: Old drugs for new pharmacological approaches in brain tumors?

Beyond its use as an antiepileptic drug, over time valproate has been increasingly used for several other therapeutic applications. Among these, the antineoplastic effects of valproate have been assessed in several in vitro and in vivo preclinical studies, suggesting that this agent significantly inhibits cancer cell proliferation by modulating multiple signaling pathways. During the last years various clinical trials have tried to find out if valproate co-administration could enhance the antineoplastic activity of chemotherapy in glioblastoma patients and in patients suffering from brain metastases, demonstrating that the inclusion of valproate in the therapeutic schedule causes an improved median overall survival in some studies, but not in others. Thus, the effects of the use of concomitant valproate in brain cancer patients are still controversial. Similarly, lithium has been tested as an anticancer drug in several preclinical studies mainly using the unregistered formulation of lithium chloride salts. Although, there are no data showing that the anticancer effects of lithium chloride are superimposable to the registered lithium carbonate, this formulation has shown preclinical activity in glioblastoma and hepatocellular cancers. However, few but interesting clinical trials have been performed with lithium carbonate on a very small number of cancer patients. Based on published data, valproate could represent a potential complementary therapeutic approach to enhance the anticancer activity of brain cancer standard chemotherapy. Same advantageous characteristics are less convincing for lithium carbonate. Therefore, the planning of specific phase III studies is necessary to validate the repositioning of these drugs in present and future oncological research.

The importance of a taste. A comparative study on wild food plant consumption in twenty-one local communities in Italy.

A comparative food ethnobotanical study was carried out in twenty-one local communities in Italy, fourteen of which were located in Northern Italy, one in Central Italy, one in Sardinia, and four in Southern Italy. 549 informants were asked to name and describe food uses of wild botanicals they currently gather and consume. Data showed that gathering, processing and consuming wild food plants are still important activities in all the selected areas. A few botanicals were quoted and cited in multiple areas, demonstrating that there are ethnobotanical contact points among the various Italian regions (Asparagus acutifolius, Reichardia picroides, Cichorium intybus, Foeniculum vulgare, Sambucus nigra, Silene vulgaris, Taraxacum officinale, Urtica dioica, Sonchus and Valerianella spp.). One taxon (Borago officinalis) in particular was found to be among the most quoted taxa in both the Southern and the Northern Italian sites. However, when we took into account data regarding the fifteen most quoted taxa in each site and compared and statistically analysed these, we observed that there were a few differences in the gathering and consumption of wild food plants between Northern and Southern Italy. In the North, Rosaceae species prevailed, whereas in the South, taxa belonging to the Asteraceae, Brassicaceae, and Liliaceae s.l. families were most frequently cited. We proposed the hypothesis that these differences may be due to the likelihood that in Southern Italy the erosion of TK on wild vegetables is taking place more slowly, and also to the likelihood that Southern Italians' have a higher appreciation of wild vegetables that have a strong and bitter taste. A correspondence analysis confirmed that the differences in the frequencies of quotation of wild plants within the Northern and the Southern Italian sites could be ascribed only partially to ethnic/cultural issues. An additional factor could be recent socio-economic shifts, which may be having a continued effort on people's knowledge of wild food plants and the way they use them. Finally, after having compared the collected data with the most important international and national food ethnobotanical databases that focus on wild edible plants, we pointed out a few uncommon plant food uses (e.g. Celtis aetnensis fruits, Cicerbita alpine shoots, Helichrysum italicum leaves, Lonicera caprifolium fruits, Symphytum officinale leaves), which are new, or have thus far been recorded only rarely.