Enhanced bioproduction of carvone in a two-liquid-phase partitioning bioreactor with a highly hydrophobic biocatalyst.

The microbial biotransformation of (-)-trans-carveol to the flavor and fragrance compound (R)-(-)-carvone by Rhodococcus erythropolis DCL14 was carried out in a 3 L two phase partitioning bioreactor with an immiscible liquid second phase in an effort to improve upon the reactor performance achieved in a single aqueous phase system. The purpose of employing the liquid second phase is to minimize biotransformation rate inhibition due to the accumulation of the toxic substrate (cis-carveol) and product (carvone) in the aqueous phase. 1-Dodecene was chosen as the solvent for this application because it is biocompatible, non-biodegradable and has a superior affinity for the target product (carvone) relative to the other solvents tested. However, when 1-dodecene was used in the biotransformation, the extremely hydrophobic R. erythropolis DCL14 created an emulsion with the organic solvent with significant sequestering of the cells into the organic phase and negligible substrate conversion. To overcome these operational difficulties, silicone oil, which is considered a liquid polymer, was used with the aim of preventing emulsification and sequestration of cells in the non-aqueous phase. Although some emulsification of the water-silicone oil was again created by the cells, operability was improved and, in fed-batch mode, the system was able to convert approximately 2(1/2) times more carveol than a benchmark single aqueous phase system before substrate/product toxicity caused the biotransformation to stop. This study has demonstrated enhancement of a microbial biotransformation for the production of a high value nutraceutical compound via the use of a second partitioning phase, along with operational challenges arising from the use of a highly hydrophobic organism in such systems.

Management Strategies for Statin-Associated Muscle Symptoms: How Useful Is Same-Statin Rechallenge?

BACKGROUND: Statin-associated muscle symptoms (SAMS) are common. Rechallenge with the same statin (same-statin rechallenge) has recently been included as part of a proposed scoring index for diagnosing SAMS, but data regarding tolerability and efficacy of same-statin rechallenge, compared with other strategies, is minimal. In this study we evaluated the tolerability, percent change in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), and proportion of patients achieving their LDL-C targets among 3 common management strategies-same-statin rechallenge, switching to a different statin (statin switch), and use of nonstatin medications only. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of 118 patients referred to our tertiary care centre for management of SAMS, defined as development of muscle-related symptoms with 2 or more statins. Baseline and last follow-up lipid parameters were documented. Patients were classified as tolerant of a strategy if, at their last follow-up, they remained on that strategy. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 17 months, most (n = 79; 67%) patients were able to tolerate a statin. Tolerability was similar among the 3 treatment strategies (71% same-statin rechallenge vs 53% statin switch vs 57% for nonstatin therapy only; P = 0.11). Those in the same-statin rechallenge and statin switch groups achieved greater LDL-C reductions compared with those who only tolerated nonstatins (-38.8 ± 3.4% vs -36.4 ± 2.9% vs -17.3 ± 4.5%; P = 0.0007). A greater proportion of patients in the same-statin rechallenge group achieved their target LDL-C compared with those in the nonstatin therapy only group (50% vs 15%; odds ratio, 6.8; 95% confidence interval, 1.5-40.7; P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Among individuals with a history of SAMS, most will tolerate statin therapy. Same-statin rechallenge was highly tolerable and efficacious. Thus, same-statin rechallenge might warrant increased utilization.