| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Heinze, Karolin, et al.
(författare)
-
Validated biomarker assays confirm ARID1A loss is confounded with MMR deficiency, CD8 TIL infiltration, and provides no independent prognostic value in endometriosis-associated ovarian carcinomas.
- 2021
-
Ingår i: The Journal of pathology. - : Wiley. - 1096-9896 .- 0022-3417. ; 256:4, s. 388-401
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- ARID1A (BAF250a) is a component of the SWI/SNF chromatin modifying complex, plays an important tumour suppressor role, and is considered prognostic in several malignancies. However, in ovarian carcinomas there are contradictory reports on its relationship to outcome, immune response, and correlation with clinicopathological features. We assembled a series of 1,623 endometriosis-associated ovarian carcinomas, including 1,078 endometrioid (ENOC) and 545 clear cell (CCOC) ovarian carcinomas through combining resources of the Ovarian Tumor Tissue Analysis (OTTA) Consortium, the Canadian Ovarian Unified Experimental Resource (COEUR), local, and collaborative networks. Validated immunohistochemical surrogate assays for ARID1A mutations were applied to all samples. We investigated associations between ARID1A loss/mutation, clinical features, outcome, CD8+ tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes (CD8+ TIL), and DNA mismatch repair deficiency (MMRd). ARID1A loss was observed in 42% of CCOC and 25% of ENOC. We found no associations between ARID1A loss and outcomes, stage, age, or CD8+ TIL status in CCOC. Similarly, we found no association with outcome or stage in endometrioid cases. In ENOC, ARID1A loss was more prevalent in younger patients (p = 0.012), and associated with MMRd (p < 0.001), and presence of CD8+ TIL (p = 0.008). Consistent with MMRd being causative of ARID1A mutations, in a subset of ENOC we also observed an association between ARID1A loss-of-function mutation as a result of small indels (p = 0.035, versus single nucleotide variants). In ENOC, the association between ARID1A loss, CD8+ TIL, and age, appears confounded by MMRd status. Although this observation does not explicitly rule out a role for ARID1A influence on CD8+ TIL infiltration in ENOC, given current knowledge regarding MMRd, it seems more likely that effects are dominated by the hypermutation phenotype. This large dataset with consistently applied biomarker assessment now provides a benchmark for the prevalence of ARID1A loss-of-function mutations in endometriosis-associated ovarian cancers and brings clarity to the prognostic significance. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
|
|
| 3. |
- 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.
|
|
