| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Dominguez, Mev, et al.
(author)
-
Characterization of germline mutations of MLH1 and MSH2 in unrelated south American suspected Lynch syndrome individuals
- 2011
-
In: Familial Cancer. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1389-9600 .- 1573-7292. ; 10:4, s. 641-647
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Lynch syndrome (LS) is an autosomal dominant syndrome that predisposes individuals to development of cancers early in life. These cancers are mainly the following: colorectal, endometrial, ovarian, small intestine, stomach and urinary tract cancers. LS is caused by germline mutations in DNA mismatch repair genes (MMR), mostly MLH1 and MSH2, which are responsible for more than 85% of known germline mutations. To search for germline mutations in MLH1 and MSH2 genes in 123 unrelated South American suspected LS patients (Bethesda or Amsterdam Criteria) DNA was obtained from peripheral blood, and PCR was performed followed by direct sequencing in both directions of all exons and intron-exon junctions regions of the MLH1 and MSH2 genes. MLH1 or MSH2 pathogenic mutations were found in 28.45% (34/123) of the individuals, where 25/57 (43.85%) fulfilled Amsterdam I, II and 9/66 (13.63%) the Bethesda criteria. The mutations found in both genes were as follows: nonsense (35.3%), frameshift (26.47%), splicing (23.52%), and missense (9%). Thirteen alterations (35.14%) were described for the first time. The data reported in this study add new information about MLH1 and MSH2 gene mutations and contribute to better characterize LS in Brazil, Uruguay and Argentina. The high rate of novel mutations demonstrates the importance of defining MLH1 and MSH2 mutations in distinct LS populations.
|
|
| 3. |
- Dominguez, Mev, et al.
(author)
-
Evaluation of MLH1 I219V Polymorphism in Unrelated South American Individuals Suspected of Having Lynch Syndrome.
- 2012
-
In: Anticancer research. - 1791-7530. ; 32:10, s. 4347-4351
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Some single-nucleotide polymorphisms are associated with higher risk of colorectal cancer development and are suggested to explain part of the genetic contribution to Lynch syndrome. Aim: To evaluate the mutL homolog 1 (MLH1) I219V polymorphism in 124 unrelated South American individuals suspected of having Lynch syndrome, based on frequency, association with pathogenic MLH1 and mutS homolog 2 (MSH2) mutation and clinical features.
|
|
| 4. |
- Dominguez, Mev, et al.
(author)
-
Mutation spectrum in South American Lynch syndrome families
- 2013
-
In: Hereditary Cancer in Clinical Practice. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1897-4287. ; 11
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background: Genetic counselling and testing for Lynch syndrome have recently been introduced in several South American countries, though yet not available in the public health care system. Methods: We compiled data from publications and hereditary cancer registries to characterize the Lynch syndrome mutation spectrum in South America. In total, data from 267 families that fulfilled the Amsterdam criteria and/or the Bethesda guidelines from Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia and Uruguay were included. Results: Disease-predisposing mutations were identified in 37% of the families and affected MLH1 in 60% and MSH2 in 40%. Half of the mutations have not previously been reported and potential founder effects were identified in Brazil and in Colombia. Conclusion: The South American Lynch syndrome mutation spectrum includes multiple new mutations, identifies potential founder effects and is useful for future development of genetic testing in this continent.
|
|
| 5. |
- 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.
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
