| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- 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.
|
|
| 3. |
-
- 2019
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)
|
|
| 4. |
- Hua, Dong, et al.
(författare)
-
Small interfering RNA-directed targeting of toll-like receptor 4 inhibits human prostate cancer cell invasion, survival, and tumorigenicity
- 2009
-
Ingår i: Molecular Immunology. - : Elsevier BV. - 0161-5890 .- 1872-9142. ; 46:15, s. 2876-2884
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- A major cause of tumor treatment failure is cancer cell metastasis. Toll-like receptor 4 (TLR4)-mediated signaling has been implicated in tumor cell invasion, survival, and metastasis in a variety of cancers. In this study, we investigated the biological roles of TLR4 in prostate metastatic cell invasion and survival, and the potential of gene silencing of TLR4 using small interfering RNA (siRNA) for treatment of cancer. In cultured human prostate cancer cell lines, TLR4 were higher PC3 and DU145 as compared with the poorly metastatic LNCaP indicating that up-regulation of TLR4 was positively correlated with metastasis of tumor cell. In the highly metastatic cancer cell PC3, gene silencing of TLR4 using siRNA significantly inhibited TLR4 mRNA expression and protein level. Knockdown of TLR4 in PC3 cells resulted in a dramatic reduction of tumor cell migration and invasion as indicated by a Matrigel invasion assay. Furthermore, TLR4 siRNA suppressed cell viability and ultimately caused the induction of apoptotic cell death. The effects were associated with abrogating TLR4-mediated signaling to downstream target molecules such as myeloid differentiation factor 88 (MyD88), adaptor-inducing IFN-beta (TRIF), and interferon regulatory factor-1 (IRF-1). In a mouse prostate cancer model, administration with the plasmid construct expressing siRNA for TLR4 obviously inhibited established tumor growth and survival. These studies revealed evidence of a multifaceted signaling network operating downstream of TLR4-mediated tumor cell invasion, proliferation, and survival. Thus, RNA interference-directed targeting of TLR4 may raise the potential of its application for cancer therapy.
|
|
| 5. |
- Hu, Li-Peng, et al.
(författare)
-
Terbinafine prevents colorectal cancer growth by inducing dNTP starvation and reducing immune suppression
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Molecular Therapy. - : Elsevier BV. - 1525-0024 .- 1525-0016. ; 30:10, s. 3284-3299
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Existing evidence indicates that gut fungal dysbiosis might play a key role in the pathogenesis of colorectal cancer (CRC). We sought to explore whether reversing the fungal dysbiosis by terbinafine, an approved antifungal drug, might inhibit the development of CRC. A population-based study from Sweden identified a total of 185 patients who received terbinafine after their CRC diagnosis and found that they had a decreased risk of death (hazard ratio=0.50) and metastasis (hazard ratio=0.44) compared with patients without terbinafine administration. In multiple mouse models of CRC, administration of terbinafine decreased the fungal load, the fungus-induced myeloid-derived suppressor cell (MDSC) expansion, and the tumor burden. Fecal microbiota transplantation from mice without terbinafine treatment reversed MDSC infiltration and partially restored tumor proliferation. Mechanistically, terbinafine directly impaired tumor cell proliferation by reducing the ratio of nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate (NADP+) to reduced form of nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate (NADPH), suppressing the activity of glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD), resulting in nucleotide synthesis disruption, deoxyribonucleotide (dNTP) starvation and cell cycle arrest. Collectively, terbinafine can inhibit CRC by reversing fungal dysbiosis, suppressing tumor cell proliferation, inhibiting fungus-induced MDSC infiltration, and restoring antitumor immune response.
|
|
