| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Bornhauser, Beat C., et al.
(författare)
-
Low-dose arsenic trioxide sensitizes glucocorticoid-resistant acute lymphoblastic leukemia cells to dexamethasone via an Akt-dependent pathway
- 2007
-
Ingår i: Blood. - : American Society of Hematology. - 0006-4971 .- 1528-0020. ; 110:6, s. 2084-2091
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Incorporation of apoptosis-inducing agents into current therapeutic regimens is an attractive strategy to improve treatment for drug-resistant leukemia. We tested the potential of arsenic trioxide (ATO) to restore the response to dexamethasone in glucocorticoid (GC)–resistant acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). Low-dose ATO markedly increased in vitro GC sensitivity of ALL cells from T-cell and precursor B-cell ALL patients with poor in vivo response to prednisone. In GC-resistant cell lines, this effect was mediated, at least in part, by inhibition of Akt and affecting downstream Akt targets such as Bad, a proapoptotic Bcl-2 family member, and the X-linked inhibitor of apoptosis protein (XIAP). Combination of ATO and dexamethasone resulted in increased Bad and rapid down-regulation of XIAP, while levels of the antiapoptotic regulator Mcl-1 remained unchanged. Expression of dominant-active Akt, reduction of Bad expression by RNA interference, or overexpression of XIAP abrogated the sensitizing effect of ATO. The inhibitory effect of XIAP overexpression was reduced when the Akt phosphorylation site was mutated (XIAP-S87A). These data suggest that the combination of ATO and glucocorticoids could be advantageous in GC-resistant ALL and reveal additional targets for the evaluation of new antileukemic agents.
|
|
| 3. |
- Deol, Abhinav, et al.
(författare)
-
Does FLT3 Mutation Impact Survival After Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation for Acute Myeloid Leukemia? : A Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) Analysis
- 2016
-
Ingår i: Cancer. - : Wiley. - 0008-543X .- 1097-0142. ; 122:19, s. 3005-3014
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Patients with FMS like tyrosine kinase 3 (FLT3)-mutated acute myeloid leukemia (AML) have a poor prognosis and are referred for early allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HCT). METHODS: Data from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) were used to evaluate 511 adult patients with de novo AML who underwent HCT during 2008 through 2011 to determine whether FLT3 mutations had an impact on HCT outcomes. RESULTS: In total, 158 patients (31%) had FLT3 mutations. Univariate and multivariate analyses revealed an increased risk of relapse at 3 years in the FLT3 mutated group compared with the wild-type (WT) group (38% [95% confidence interval (CI), 30%-45%] vs 28% [95% CI, 24%-33%]; P = .04; relative risk, 1.60 [95% CI, 1.15-2.22]; P = .0048). However, FLT3 mutation status was not significantly associated with nonrelapse mortality, leukemia-free survival, or overall survival. Although more patients in the FLT3 mutated group died from relapsed primary disease compared with those in the WT group (60% vs 46%), the 3-year overall survival rate was comparable for the 2 groups (mutated group: 49%; 95% CI, 40%-57%; WT group: 55%, 95% CI, 50%-60%; P = .20). CONCLUSIONS: The current data indicate that FLT3 mutation status did not adversely impact overall survival after HCT, and about 50% of patients with this mutation who underwent HCT were long-term survivors.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- 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.
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
