| 1. |
- 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.
|
|
| 2. |
- Andreasson, Håkan, et al.
(författare)
-
Histopathological classification of pseudomyxoma peritonei and the prognostic importance of PINCH protein
- 2012
-
Ingår i: Anticancer Research. - : International Institute of Anticancer Research (IIAR). - 0250-7005 .- 1791-7530. ; 32:4, s. 1443-1448
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- AIM: The aims of this study were i) to assess a new and more detailed histopathological classification and to analyze concordance between pathologists in the histopathological classification of pseudomyxoma peritonei (PMP); ii) to analyze the expression in the stroma of the particularly interesting new cysteine-histidine (PINCH) protein and its prognostic importance in PMP.MATERIALS AND METHODS: Surgical specimens from 81 patients, classified according to the Ronnett et al histopathological classification were compared to a new system with four groups ranging from indolent to aggressive growth patterns. PINCH protein expression was analyzed and was related to clinical variables.RESULTS: The new four-group classification provided better prognostic information than the classification according to Ronnett et al. (p=0.04). Expression of the PINCH protein in the stroma was found in 83% of the cases and was associated with high tumor burden (p=0.002) and a poor prognosis (p=0.04).CONCLUSION: The proposed new PMP classification system may provide additional prognostic information. PINCH protein is expressed in PMP and has prognostic information.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Ticha, Ivana, et al.
(författare)
-
Variants of the PPARD Gene and Their Clinicopathological Significance in Colorectal Cancer
- 2013
-
Ingår i: PLOS ONE. - : Public Library of Science. - 1932-6203. ; 8:12, s. 83952-
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor delta (PPARD) is nuclear hormone receptor involved in colorectal cancer (CRC) differentiation and progression. The purpose of this study was to determine prevalence and spectrum of variants in the PPARD gene in CRC, and their contribution to clinicopathological endpoints. Methods and Findings: Direct sequencing of the PPARD gene was performed in 303 primary tumors, in blood samples from 50 patients with greater than= 3 affected first-degree relatives, 50 patients with 2 affected first-degree relatives, 50 sporadic patients, 360 healthy controls, and in 6 colon cancer cell lines. Mutation analysis revealed 22 different transversions, 7 of them were novel. Three of all variants were somatic (c. 548Agreater thanG, p.Y183C, c.425-9Cgreater thanT, and c.628-16Ggreater thanA). Two missense mutations (p.Y183C and p.R258Q) were pathogenic using in silico predictive program. Five recurrent variants were detected in/adjacent to the exons 4 (c.1-87Tgreater thanC, c.1-67Ggreater thanA, c.130+3Ggreater thanA, and c.1-101-8Cgreater thanT) and exon 7 (c.489Tgreater thanC). Variant c.489C/C detected in tumors was correlated to worse differentiation (P=0.0397). Conclusions: We found 7 novel variants among 22 inherited or acquired PPARD variants. Somatic and/or missense variants detected in CRC patients are rare but indicate the clinical importance of the PPARD gene.
|
|
