| 1. |
- Klionsky, Daniel J., et al.
(författare)
-
Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy in higher eukaryotes
- 2008
-
Ingår i: Autophagy. - : Landes Bioscience. - 1554-8627 .- 1554-8635. ; 4:2, s. 151-175
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Research in autophagy continues to accelerate,1 and as a result many new scientists are entering the field. Accordingly, it is important to establish a standard set of criteria for monitoring macroautophagy in different organisms. Recent reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose.2,3 There are many useful and convenient methods that can be used to monitor macroautophagy in yeast, but relatively few in other model systems, and there is much confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure macroautophagy in higher eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers of autophagosomes versus those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway; thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from fully functional autophagy that includes delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of the methods that can be used by investigators who are attempting to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as by reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that investigate these processes. This set of guidelines is 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 verify an autophagic response.
|
|
| 2. |
- Jonkers, Y. M. H., et al.
(författare)
-
Molecular parameters associated with insulinoma progression : chromosomal instability versus p53 and CK19 status
- 2006
-
Ingår i: Cytogenetic and Genome Research. - : S. Karger AG. - 1424-8581 .- 1424-859X. ; 115:3-4, s. 289-297
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Insulinomas represent the predominant syndromic subtype of endocrine pancreatic tumors (EPTs). Their metastatic potential cannot be predicted reliably using histopathological criteria. In the past few years, several attempts have been made to identify prognostic markers, among them TP53 mutations and immunostaining of p53 and recently cytokeratin 19 (CK19). In a previous study using conventional comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) we have shown that chromosomal instability (CIN) is associated with metastatic disease in insulinomas. It was our aim to evaluate these potential parameters in a single study. For the determination of CIN, we applied CGH to microarrays because it allows a high-resolution detection of DNA copy number changes in comparison with conventional CGH as well as the analysis of chromosomal regions close to the centromeres and telomeres, and at 1pter -> p32, 16p, 19 and 22. These regions are usually excluded from conventional CGH analysis, because they may show DNA gains in negative control hybridizations. Array CGH analysis of 30 insulinomas (15 tumors of benign, eight tumors of uncertain and seven tumors of malignant behavior) revealed that >= 20 chromosomal alterations and >= 6 telomeric losses were the best predictors of malignant progression. A subset of 22 insulinomas was further investigated for TP53 exon 5-8 gene mutations, and p53 and CK19 expression. Only one malignant tumor was shown to harbor an arginine 273 serine mutation and immunopositivity for p53. CK19 immunopositivity was detected in three malignant tumors and one tumor with uncertain behavior. In conclusion, our results indicate that CIN as well as telomeric loss are very powerful indicators for malignant progression in sporadic insulinomas. Our data do not support a critical role for p53 and CK19 as molecular parameters for this purpose.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
