Fine 2. Author names: Please confirm if the author names are presented accurately and in the correct sequence (given name, middle name/initial, family name). Author 7 Given name: [Marija Sollner] Last name [Dolenc]. Also, kindly confirm the details in the metadata are correct.The given name is Marija, the last name is Sollner Dolenc.

Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is one of the most common urinary diseases affecting men, generally after the age of 50. The prevalence of this multifactorial disease increases with age. With aging, the plasma level of testosterone decreases, as well as the testosterone/estrogen ratio, resulting in increased estrogen activity, which may facilitate the hyperplasia of the prostate cells. Another theory focuses on dihydrotestosterone (DHT) and the activity of the enzyme 5α-reductase, which converts testosterone to DHT. In older men, the activity of this enzyme increases, leading to a decreased testosterone/DHT ratio. DHT may promote prostate cell growth, resulting in hyperplasia. Some medicinal plants and their compounds act by modulating this enzyme, and have the above-mentioned targets. This review focuses on herbal drugs that are most widely used in the treatment of BPH, including pumpkin seed, willow herb, tomato, maritime pine bark, Pygeum africanum bark, rye pollen, saw palmetto fruit, and nettle root, highlighting the latest results of preclinical and clinical studies, as well as safety issues. In addition, the pharmaceutical care and other therapeutic options of BPH, including pharmacotherapy and surgical options, are discussed, summarizing and comparing the advantages and disadvantages of each therapy.

Herbal products are often used as an alternative to pharmacological therapy. Menopausal symptoms and gynecological disorders (such as premenstrual syndrome and dysmenorrhea) are the indications where pharmacological therapy may have serious adverse events, hence many women prefer to use herbal products to help with these symptoms. Here, we reviewed plants and derived products, which are commonly used for the abovementioned indications, focusing on clinical data, safely profile and whether or not their use is justified. We noted that limited data are available on the use of some plants for alleviating the symptoms of menopause and gynecological disorders. While black cohosh (Cimicifuga racemose) and red clover (Trifolium pretense) were consistently shown to help reduce menopausal symptoms in clinical studies, currently available data do not fully support the use of fenugreek (Trigonella foenum-graecum), hops (Humulus lupulus), valerian (Valeriana officinalis), and soybean (Glycine max and Glycine soja) for this indication. For premenstrual syndrome and premenstrual dysphoric disorder, chaste tree (Vitex agnus-castus) shows effectiveness, but more clinical studies are needed to confirm such effect upon the use of evening primrose (Oenothera biennis).

Receptor for activated C kinase 1 (RACK1) has an important role in immune activation, and is regulated through a balance between glucocorticoid and androgen levels. We have previously demonstrated that RACK1 expression can serve as a marker for evaluation of immunotoxic profiles of hormone-active substances, such as endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs). In this study, we investigated the effects of three bisphenols (BPA, BPAF, BPS) on RACK1 expression and on the innate immune responses in the THP-1 human promyelocytic cell line, a validated model for this investigation. BPA and BPAF reduced RACK1 promoter transcriptional activity, mRNA expression, and protein levels. However, BPS had the opposite effect. As expected, these results on RACK1 were paralleled by lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-induced interleukin-8 (IL-8) and tumor necrosis factor-α (TNFα) production. Since BPA and BPAF induced RACK1 expression in the presence of glucocorticoid receptor (GR) antagonist mifepristone, a role of G-protein-coupled estrogen receptor (GPER) has been considered due to their known estrogenic profile. Therefore, additional molecular effects of BPA and BPAF were unmasked after treatment with different inhibitors of well-known pivotal players of GPER-mediated signaling. BPA exerted its effects on RACK1 via NF-κB, as shown using the NF-κB inhibitor BAY11-7085 and NF-κB-specific luciferase reporter assay. Conversely, BPAF induced RACK1 up-regulation via androgen receptor (AR) activation, as confirmed by treatment with AR antagonist flutamide. Indeed, a biased agonism profile for BPA and BPAF for GPER was suggested based on their different binding modes revealed by our molecular docking. Altogether, our data suggest that RACK1 could represent an important target of EDCs and serves as a screening tool for their immunotoxic potential. Furthermore, RACK1 can be exploited to unmask multiple molecular interactions of hormone-active substances to better dissect out their mechanisms of action.

BACKGROUND: Endocrine-disrupting chemicals can interfere with hormonal homeostasis and have adverse effects for both humans and the environment. Their identification is increasingly difficult due to lack of adequate toxicological tests. This difficulty is particularly problematic for cosmetic ingredients, because in vivo testing is now banned completely in the European Union. OBJECTIVES: The aim was to identify candidate preservatives as endocrine disruptors by in silico methods and to confirm endocrine receptors' activities through nuclear receptors in vitro. METHODS: We screened preservatives listed in Annex V in the European Union Regulation on cosmetic products to predict their binding to nuclear receptors using the Endocrine Disruptome and VirtualToxLab™ version 5.8 in silico tools. Five candidate preservatives were further evaluated for androgen receptor (AR), estrogen receptor (ERa), glucocorticoid receptor (GR), and thyroid receptor (TR) agonist and antagonist activities in cellbased luciferase reporter assays in vitro in AR-EcoScreen, hERa-HeLa-9903, MDA-kb2, and GH3.TRE-Luc cell lines. Additionally, assays to test for false positives were used (nonspecific luciferase gene induction and luciferase inhibition). RESULTS: Triclocarban had agonist activity on AR and ERa at 1 lM and antagonist activity on GR at 5 lM and TR at 1 lM. Triclosan showed antagonist effects on AR, ERa, GR at 10 lM and TR at 5 lM, and bromochlorophene at 1 lM (AR and TR) and at 10 lM (ERa and GR). AR antagonist activity of chlorophene was observed [inhibitory concentration at 50% (IC 50) IC 50 = 2:4 lM], as for its substantial ERa agonist at >5 lM and TR antagonist activity at 10 lM. Climbazole showed AR antagonist (IC 50 = 13:6 lM), ERa agonist at >10 lM, and TR antagonist activity at 10 lM. DISCUSSION: These data support the concerns of regulatory authorities about the endocrine-disrupting potential of preservatives. These data also define the need to further determine their effects on the endocrine system and the need to reassess the risks they pose to human health and the environment.