| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Chung, Sui Chu, et al.
(author)
-
A high cannabinoid CB(1) receptor immunoreactivity is associated with disease severity and outcome in prostate cancer
- 2009
-
In: European Journal of Cancer. - : Elsevier BV. - 0959-8049 .- 1879-0852. ; 45:1, s. 174-182
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- In the light of findings indicating that cannabinoids can affect the proliferation of a number of cancer cell types and that cannabinoid receptor expression is higher in prostate cancer cell lines than in non-malignant cells, we investigated whether the level of cannabinoid 1 receptor immunoreactivity (CB(1)IR) in prostate cancer tissues is associated with disease severity and outcome. Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded non-malignant and tumour tissue samples from patients who were diagnosed with prostate cancer at a transurethral resection for voiding problems were used. CB(1)IR, which was scored in a total of 399 cases, was associated with the epithelial cell membranes, with little staining in the stroma. Patients with a tumour CB(1)IR score greater or equal to the median (2) had a significantly higher proportion of Gleason scores 8-10, metastases at diagnosis, tumour size and rate of cell proliferation at diagnosis than patients with a score<2. For 269 cases, tumour CB(1)IR was measured for patients who only received palliative therapy at the end stages of the disease, allowing the influence of CB(1)IR upon the disease outcome to be determined. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves showed an area under the curve of 0.67 (95% confidence limits 0.59-0.74) for CB(1)IR in the tumour. CB(1)IR in non-malignant tissue was not associated with disease outcome. A tumour CB(1)IR score >or=2 was associated with a significantly lower disease specific survival. A Cox proportional hazards regression indicated that the tumour CB(1)IR score and the Gleason score were independent prognostic variables. It is concluded that a high tumour CB(1)IR score is associated with prostate cancer severity and outcome.
|
|
| 4. |
- Fowler, Christopher J, et al.
(author)
-
Targeting the endocannabinoid system for the treatment of cancer : a practical view
- 2010
-
In: Current Topics in Medicinal Chemistry. - : Bentham Science Publishers. - 1568-0266 .- 1873-4294. ; 10:8, s. 814-827
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)abstract
- In recent years, considerable interest has been generated by findings that cannabinoids not only have useful palliative effects, but also can affect the viability and invasivity of a variety of different cancer cells. In the present review, the potential of targeting the cannabinoid system for the treatment of cancer is considered from a practical, rather than a mechanistic viewpoint, addressing questions such as whether human tumour cells express CB receptors; whether the potencies of action of cannabinoids in vitro match the potencies expected on the base of receptor theory; what is known about the in vivo effects of cannabinoids and cancer, and how relevant the experiments undertaken are to the clinical situation; and finally, what approaches can be taken to minimise unwanted effects of cannabinoid treatment. It is concluded that cannabinoids (or agents modulating the endogenous cannabinoid system) are an attractive target for drug development in the cancer area, but that more in vivo studies, particularly those investigating the potential of cannabinoids as an addition to current treatment strategies, are needed.
|
|
| 5. |
- Fowler, Christopher J., et al.
(author)
-
Tumour epithelial expression levels of endocannabinoid markers modulate the value of endoglin-positive vascular density as a prognostic marker in prostate cancer
- 2013
-
In: Biochimica et Biophysica Acta - Molecular and Cell Biology of Lipids. - : Elsevier BV. - 1388-1981 .- 1879-2618. ; 1831:10, s. 1579-1587
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Fatty acid amide hydrolase (FAAH) is responsible for the hydrolysis of the endogenous cannabinoid (CB) receptor ligand anandamide. Here we have investigated whether the expression levels of FAAH and CB1 receptors influence the prognostic value of markers of angiogenesis in prostate cancer. Data from a cohort of 419 patients who were diagnosed with prostate cancer at transurethral resection for lower urinary tract symptoms, of whom approximately 2/3 had been followed by expectancy, were used. Scores for the angiogenesis markers endoglin and von Willebrand factor (vWf), the endocannabinoid markers fatty acid amide hydrolase (FAAH) and cannabinoid CB1 receptors and the cell proliferation marker Ki-67 were available in the database. For the cases followed by expectancy, the prognostic value of endoglin was dependent upon the tumour epithelial FAAH immunoreactivity (FAAH-IR) and CB1IR scores, and the non-malignant epithelial FAAH-IR scores, but not the non-malignant CB1IR scores or the tumour blood vessel FAAH-IR scores. This dependency upon the tumour epithelial FAAH-IR or CB1IR scores was less apparent for vWf, and was not seen for Ki-67. Using an endoglin cut-off value of 10 positively stained vessels per core and a median split of tumour FAAH-IR, four groups could be generated, with 15 year of disease-specific survival (%) of 68 +/- 7 (low endoglin, low FAAH), 45 +/- 11 (high endoglin, low FAAH), 77 +/- 6 (low endoglin, high FAAH) and 21 +/- 10 (high endoglin, high FAAH). Thus, the cases with high endoglin and high FAAH scores have the poorest rate of disease-specific survival. At diagnosis, the number of cases with tumour stages 1a-1b relative to stages 2-4 was sensitive to the endoglin score in a manner dependent upon the tumour FAAH-IR. It is concluded that the prognostic value of endoglin as a marker of neovascularisation in prostate cancer can be influenced by the expression level of markers of the endocannabinoid system. This article is part of a Special Issue entitled Lipid Metabolism in Cancer.
|
|
| 6. |
- Klionsky, Daniel J., et al.
(author)
-
Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy
- 2012
-
In: Autophagy. - : Informa UK Limited. - 1554-8635 .- 1554-8627. ; 8:4, s. 445-544
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)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.
|
|
