| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Bojmar, Linda, 1983-, et al.
(författare)
-
Extracellular vesicle and particle isolation from human and murine cell lines, tissues, and bodily fluids
- 2021
-
Ingår i: STAR protocols. - : Cell Press. - 2666-1667. ; 2:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- We developed a modified protocol, based on differential ultracentrifugation (dUC), to isolate extracellular vesicles and particles (specifically exomeres) (EVPs) from various human and murine sources, including cell lines, surgically resected tumors and adjacent tissues, and bodily fluids, such as blood, lymphatic fluid, and bile. The diversity of these samples requires robust and highly reproducible protocols and refined isolation technology, such as asymmetric-flow field-flow fractionation (AF4). Our isolation protocol allows for preparation of EVPs for various downstream applications, including proteomic profiling. For complete details on the use and execution of this protocol, please refer to Hoshino et al. (2020).
|
|
| 4. |
- Couch, Fergus J., et al.
(författare)
-
Identification of four novel susceptibility loci for oestrogen receptor negative breast cancer
- 2016
-
Ingår i: Nature Communications. - : NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP. - 2041-1723. ; 7:11375, s. 1-13
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Common variants in 94 loci have been associated with breast cancer including 15 loci with genome-wide significant associations (P<5 x 10(-8)) with oestrogen receptor (ER)-negative breast cancer and BRCA1-associated breast cancer risk. In this study, to identify new ER-negative susceptibility loci, we performed a meta-analysis of 11 genome-wide association studies (GWAS) consisting of 4,939 ER-negative cases and 14,352 controls, combined with 7,333 ER-negative cases and 42,468 controls and 15,252 BRCA1 mutation carriers genotyped on the iCOGS array. We identify four previously unidentified loci including two loci at 13q22 near KLF5, a 2p23.2 locus near WDR43 and a 2q33 locus near PPIL3 that display genome-wide significant associations with ER-negative breast cancer. In addition, 19 known breast cancer risk loci have genome-wide significant associations and 40 had moderate associations (P<0.05) with ER-negative disease. Using functional and eQTL studies we implicate TRMT61B and WDR43 at 2p23.2 and PPIL3 at 2q33 in ER-negative breast cancer aetiology. All ER-negative loci combined account for similar to 11% of familial relative risk for ER-negative disease and may contribute to improved ER-negative and BRCA1 breast cancer risk prediction.
|
|
| 5. |
- Hoshino, Ayuko, et al.
(författare)
-
Extracellular Vesicle and Particle Biomarkers Define Multiple Human Cancers
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Cell. - : CELL PRESS. - 0092-8674 .- 1097-4172. ; 182:4, s. 1044-
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- There is an unmet clinical need for improved tissue and liquid biopsy tools for cancer detection. We investigated the proteomic profile of extracellular vesicles and particles (EVPs) in 426 human samples from tissue explants (TEs), plasma, and other bodily fluids. Among traditional exosome markers, CD9, HSPA8, ALIX, and HSP90AB1 represent pan-EVP markers, while ACTB, MSN, and RAP1B are novel pan-EVP markers. To confirm that EVPs are ideal diagnostic tools, we analyzed proteomes of TE- (n =151) and plasma-derived (n =120) EVPs. Comparison of TE EVPs identified proteins (e.g., VCAN, TNC, and THBS2) that distinguish tumors from normal tissues with 90% sensitivity/94% specificity. Machine-learning classification of plasma-derived EVP cargo, including immunoglobulins, revealed 95% sensitivity/90% specificity in detecting cancer Finally, we defined a panel of tumor-type-specific EVP proteins in TEs and plasma, which can classify tumors of unknown primary origin. Thus, EVP proteins can serve as reliable biomarkers for cancer detection and determining cancer type.
|
|
| 6. |
- Klionsky, Daniel J., et al.
(författare)
-
Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy
- 2012
-
Ingår i: Autophagy. - : Informa UK Limited. - 1554-8635 .- 1554-8627. ; 8:4, s. 445-544
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field.
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
