| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Klionsky, Daniel J., et al.
(author)
-
Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy
- 2012
-
In: Autophagy. - : Informa UK Limited. - 1554-8635 .- 1554-8627. ; 8:4, s. 445-544
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)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.
|
|
| 3. |
- Block, Keith I., et al.
(author)
-
Designing a broad-spectrum integrative approach for cancer prevention and treatment
- 2015
-
In: Seminars in Cancer Biology. - : Academic Press. - 1044-579X .- 1096-3650. ; 35, s. S276-S304
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Targeted therapies and the consequent adoption of "personalized" oncology have achieved notable successes in some cancers; however, significant problems remain with this approach. Many targeted therapies are highly toxic, costs are extremely high, and most patients experience relapse after a few disease-free months. Relapses arise from genetic heterogeneity in tumors, which harbor therapy-resistant immortalized cells that have adopted alternate and compensatory pathways (i.e., pathways that are not reliant upon the same mechanisms as those which have been targeted). To address these limitations, an international task force of 180 scientists was assembled to explore the concept of a low-toxicity "broadspectrum" therapeutic approach that could simultaneously target many key pathways and mechanisms. Using cancer hallmark phenotypes and the tumor microenvironment to account for the various aspects of relevant cancer biology, interdisciplinary teams reviewed each hallmark area and nominated a wide range of high-priority targets (74 in total) that could be modified to improve patient outcomes. For these targets, corresponding low-toxicity therapeutic approaches were then suggested, many of which were phytochemicals. Proposed actions on each target and all of the approaches were further reviewed for known effects on other hallmark areas and the tumor microenvironment Potential contrary or procarcinogenic effects were found for 3.9% of the relationships between targets and hallmarks, and mixed evidence of complementary and contrary relationships was found for 7.1%. Approximately 67% of the relationships revealed potentially complementary effects, and the remainder had no known relationship. Among the approaches, 1.1% had contrary, 2.8% had mixed and 62.1% had complementary relationships. These results suggest that a broad-spectrum approach should be feasible from a safety standpoint. This novel approach has potential to be relatively inexpensive, it should help us address stages and types of cancer that lack conventional treatment, and it may reduce relapse risks. A proposed agenda for future research is offered. (C) 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
|
|
| 4. |
- Wang, Zongwei, et al.
(author)
-
Broad targeting of angiogenesis for cancer prevention and therapy
- 2015
-
In: Seminars in Cancer Biology. - : Elsevier. - 1044-579X .- 1096-3650. ; S1044-579X:15, s. 00002-00004
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Deregulation of angiogenesis - the growth of new blood vessels from an existing vasculature - is a main driving force in many severe human diseases including cancer. As such, tumor angiogenesis is important for delivering oxygen and nutrients to growing tumors, and therefore considered an essential pathologic feature of cancer, while also playing a key role in enabling other aspects of tumor pathology such as metabolic deregulation and tumor dissemination/metastasis. Recently, inhibition of tumor angiogenesis has become a clinical anti-cancer strategy in line with chemotherapy, radiotherapy and surgery, which underscore the critical importance of the angiogenic switch during early tumor development. Unfortunately the clinically approved anti-angiogenic drugs in use today are only effective in a subset of the patients, and many who initially respond develop resistance over time. Also, some of the anti-angiogenic drugs are toxic and it would be of great importance to identify alternative compounds, which could overcome these drawbacks and limitations of the currently available therapy. Finding "the most important target" may, however, prove a very challenging approach as the tumor environment is highly diverse, consisting of many different cell types, all of which may contribute to tumor angiogenesis. Furthermore, the tumor cells themselves are genetically unstable, leading to a progressive increase in the number of different angiogenic factors produced as the cancer progresses to advanced stages. As an alternative approach to targeted therapy, options to broadly interfere with angiogenic signals by a mixture of non-toxic natural compound with pleiotropic actions were viewed by this team as an opportunity to develop a complementary anti-angiogenesis treatment option. As a part of the "Halifax Project" within the "Getting to know cancer" framework, we have here, based on a thorough review of the literature, identified 10 important aspects of tumor angiogenesis and the pathological tumor vasculature which would be well suited as targets for anti-angiogenic therapy: (1) endothelial cell migration/tip cell formation, (2) structural abnormalities of tumor vessels, (3) hypoxia, (4) lymphangiogenesis, (5) elevated interstitial fluid pressure, (6) poor perfusion, (7) disrupted circadian rhythms, (8) tumor promoting inflammation, (9) tumor promoting fibroblasts and (10) tumor cell metabolism/acidosis. Following this analysis, we scrutinized the available literature on broadly acting anti-angiogenic natural products, with a focus on finding qualitative information on phytochemicals which could inhibit these targets and came up with 10 prototypical phytochemical compounds: (1) oleic acid, (2) tripterine, (3) silibinin, (4) curcumin, (5) epigallocatechin-gallate, (6) kaempferol, (7) melatonin, (8) enterolactone, (9) withaferin A and (10) resveratrol. We suggest that these plant-derived compounds could be combined to constitute a broader acting and more effective inhibitory cocktail at doses that would not be likely to cause excessive toxicity. All the targets and phytochemical approaches were further cross-validated against their effects on other essential tumorigenic pathways (based on the "hallmarks" of cancer) in order to discover possible synergies or potentially harmful interactions, and were found to generally also have positive involvement in/effects on these other aspects of tumor biology. The aim is that this discussion could lead to the selection of combinations of such anti-angiogenic compounds which could be used in potent anti-tumor cocktails, for enhanced therapeutic efficacy, reduced toxicity and circumvention of single-agent anti-angiogenic resistance, as well as for possible use in primary or secondary cancer prevention strategies.
|
|
