| 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. |
- Doyle, Leona A, et al.
(författare)
-
MUC4 Is a Sensitive and Extremely Useful Marker for Sclerosing Epithelioid Fibrosarcoma: Association With FUS Gene Rearrangement.
- 2012
-
Ingår i: American Journal of Surgical Pathology. - 1532-0979. ; 36:10, s. 1444-1451
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Sclerosing epithelioid fibrosarcoma (SEF) is a rare aggressive fibroblastic neoplasm composed of cords of epithelioid cells embedded in a dense collagenous stroma. The reported immunophenotype of SEF is nonspecific. Some SEF cases show morphologic and molecular overlap with low-grade fibromyxoid sarcoma (LGFMS), suggesting a relationship between these tumor types. MUC4 has recently been identified as a sensitive and specific marker for LGFMS; MUC4 expression was also observed in 2 tumors with hybrid features of SEF and LGFMS. We investigated MUC4 expression in SEF and other epithelioid soft tissue tumors to determine (1) the potential diagnostic utility of MUC4 for SEF and (2) the association between MUC4 expression and FUS rearrangement in SEF. Whole sections of 180 tumors were evaluated: 41 cases of SEF (including 29 "pure" SEF and 12 hybrid LGFMS-SEF), 20 epithelioid sarcomas, 11 clear cell sarcomas, 11 metastatic melanomas, 10 perivascular epithelioid cell tumors, 10 alveolar soft part sarcomas, 10 epithelioid angiosarcomas, 10 epithelioid hemangioendotheliomas, 10 epithelioid gastrointestinal stromal tumors, 10 myoepithelial carcinomas, 17 ossifying fibromyxoid tumors, 10 leiomyosarcomas, and 10 biphasic synovial sarcomas. Immunohistochemical analysis was performed after antigen retrieval using a mouse anti-MUC4 monoclonal antibody. Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) was performed on 33 SEF cases using FUS break-apart probes. A subset of cases was also evaluated for EWSR1 and CREB3L2/L1 rearrangements by FISH. Strong diffuse cytoplasmic staining for MUC4 was observed in 32 of 41 (78%) cases of SEF, including all 12 hybrid tumors. FUS rearrangement was detected in 8 of 21 (38%) MUC4-positive cases of SEF with successful FISH studies. The prevalence of FUS rearrangement was similar in hybrid LGFMS-SEF (2 of 6; 33%) and SEF without an LGFMS component (6 of 15; 40%). FUS rearrangement was not detected in any cases of MUC4-negative SEF. Two hybrid tumors had both EWSR1 and CREB3L1 rearrangements. MUC4 expression was also seen in 9 of 10 (90%) biphasic synovial sarcomas, predominantly in the glandular component. All other tumor types were negative for MUC4, apart from focal reactivity in 5 ossifying fibromyxoid tumors, 2 epithelioid gastrointestinal stromal tumors, and 1 myoepithelial carcinoma. MUC4 is a sensitive and relatively specific marker for SEF among epithelioid soft tissue tumors. MUC4 expression occurs more frequently than FUS rearrangement in SEF. The finding of EWSR1 and CREB3L1 rearrangements in 2 cases of hybrid LGFMS-SEF suggests that SEFs are genetically heterogenous. MUC4-positive SEFs with FUS rearrangement are likely closely related to LGFMS. MUC4-positive SEFs that lack FUS rearrangement may be related to LGFMS but could have alternate fusion partners, including EWSR1. SEF without MUC4 expression may represent a distinct group of tumors. MUC4 expression correlates with glandular epithelial differentiation in biphasic synovial sarcoma and is very limited in other epithelioid soft tissue tumors.
|
|
