ABSTRACT
The mosquito Aedes albopictus can transmit various arboviral diseases, posing a severe threat to human health. As an environmentally friendly method, sterile insect technology (SIT) is considered an alternative to traditional methods such as chemical pesticides to control Ae. albopictus. In SIT, the sterility of male mosquitoes can be achieved by γ-ray or X-ray radiation. Compared with γ-rays, X-rays are easier to obtain, cheaper, and less harmful. However, there is a lack of comparative assessment of these two types of radiation for SIT under the same controlled conditions. Here, we compared the effects of X-ray and γ-ray radiation on the sterility of Ae. albopictus males under laboratory-controlled conditions. Neither type of radiation affected the number of eggs but significantly reduced the survival time and hatch rate. The same dose of γ-rays caused a higher sterility effect on males than X-rays but had a more significant impact on survival. However, X-rays could achieve the same sterility effect as γ-rays by increasing the radiation dose. For example, X-rays of 60 Gy induced 99% sterility, similar to γ-rays of 40 Gy. In the test of male mating competitiveness, the induced sterility and the male mating competitiveness index were also identical at the same release ratio (sterile males/fertile males). At a release ratio of 7:1, nearly 80% of eggs failed to hatch. Sterile males produced by X-ray and γ-ray radiation had similar male competitiveness in competition with field males. In conclusion, a higher dose of X-rays is required to achieve the same sterility effect, compared to γ-rays. When γ-rays are not readily available, high-dose X-rays can be used instead. This study provides data supporting the selection of more suitable radiation for the field release of sterile male mosquitoes.
ABSTRACT
This corrects the article on p. 439 in vol. 21, PMID: 35079445.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Gastric cancer (GC) has high morbidity and mortality and is a serious threat to public health. The flavonoid compound vitexin is known to exhibit anti-tumor activity. In this study, we explored the therapeutic potential of vitexin in GC and its underlying mechanism. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The viability, migration, and invasion of GC cells were determined using MTT, scratch wound healing, and transwell assays, respectively. Target molecule expression was determined by western blotting. Tumor growth and liver metastasis were evaluated in vivo using nude mice. Protein expression in the tumor tissues was examined by immunohistochemistry. RESULTS: Vitexin inhibited GC cell viability, migration, invasion, and epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) in a dose-dependent manner. Vitexin treatment led to the inactivation of phosphatidylinositol-3-kinase (PI3K)/AKT/hypoxia-inducible factor-1α (HIF-1α) pathway by repressing HMGB1 expression. Vitexin-mediated inhibition in proliferation, migration, invasion and EMT of GC cells were counteracted by hyper-activation of PI3K/AKT/HIF-1α pathway or HMGB1 overexpression. Finally, vitexin inhibited the xenograft tumor growth and liver metastasis in vivo by suppressing HMGB1 expression. CONCLUSIONS: Vitexin inhibited the malignant progression of GC in vitro and in vivo by suppressing HMGB1-mediated activation of PI3K/Akt/HIF-1α signaling pathway. Thus, vitexin may serve as a promising therapeutic agent for the treatment of GC.
