| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Beal, Jacob, et al.
(author)
-
Robust estimation of bacterial cell count from optical density
- 2020
-
In: Communications Biology. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 2399-3642. ; 3:1
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Optical density (OD) is widely used to estimate the density of cells in liquid culture, but cannot be compared between instruments without a standardized calibration protocol and is challenging to relate to actual cell count. We address this with an interlaboratory study comparing three simple, low-cost, and highly accessible OD calibration protocols across 244 laboratories, applied to eight strains of constitutive GFP-expressing E. coli. Based on our results, we recommend calibrating OD to estimated cell count using serial dilution of silica microspheres, which produces highly precise calibration (95.5% of residuals <1.2-fold), is easily assessed for quality control, also assesses instrument effective linear range, and can be combined with fluorescence calibration to obtain units of Molecules of Equivalent Fluorescein (MEFL) per cell, allowing direct comparison and data fusion with flow cytometry measurements: in our study, fluorescence per cell measurements showed only a 1.07-fold mean difference between plate reader and flow cytometry data.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- 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.
|
|
| 5. |
-
- 2019
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)
|
|
| 6. |
- Campbell, PJ, et al.
(author)
-
Pan-cancer analysis of whole genomes
- 2020
-
In: Nature. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1476-4687 .- 0028-0836. ; 578:7793, s. 82-
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Cancer is driven by genetic change, and the advent of massively parallel sequencing has enabled systematic documentation of this variation at the whole-genome scale1–3. Here we report the integrative analysis of 2,658 whole-cancer genomes and their matching normal tissues across 38 tumour types from the Pan-Cancer Analysis of Whole Genomes (PCAWG) Consortium of the International Cancer Genome Consortium (ICGC) and The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA). We describe the generation of the PCAWG resource, facilitated by international data sharing using compute clouds. On average, cancer genomes contained 4–5 driver mutations when combining coding and non-coding genomic elements; however, in around 5% of cases no drivers were identified, suggesting that cancer driver discovery is not yet complete. Chromothripsis, in which many clustered structural variants arise in a single catastrophic event, is frequently an early event in tumour evolution; in acral melanoma, for example, these events precede most somatic point mutations and affect several cancer-associated genes simultaneously. Cancers with abnormal telomere maintenance often originate from tissues with low replicative activity and show several mechanisms of preventing telomere attrition to critical levels. Common and rare germline variants affect patterns of somatic mutation, including point mutations, structural variants and somatic retrotransposition. A collection of papers from the PCAWG Consortium describes non-coding mutations that drive cancer beyond those in the TERT promoter4; identifies new signatures of mutational processes that cause base substitutions, small insertions and deletions and structural variation5,6; analyses timings and patterns of tumour evolution7; describes the diverse transcriptional consequences of somatic mutation on splicing, expression levels, fusion genes and promoter activity8,9; and evaluates a range of more-specialized features of cancer genomes8,10–18.
|
|
| 7. |
- Klionsky, Daniel J., et al.
(author)
-
Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy in higher eukaryotes
- 2008
-
In: Autophagy. - : Landes Bioscience. - 1554-8627 .- 1554-8635. ; 4:2, s. 151-175
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)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.
|
|
| 8. |
- Sampson, Joshua N., et al.
(author)
-
Analysis of Heritability and Shared Heritability Based on Genome-Wide Association Studies for 13 Cancer Types
- 2015
-
In: Journal of the National Cancer Institute. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 0027-8874 .- 1460-2105. ; 107:12
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background: Studies of related individuals have consistently demonstrated notable familial aggregation of cancer. We aim to estimate the heritability and genetic correlation attributable to the additive effects of common single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) for cancer at 13 anatomical sites. Methods: Between 2007 and 2014, the US National Cancer Institute has generated data from genome-wide association studies (GWAS) for 49 492 cancer case patients and 34 131 control patients. We apply novel mixed model methodology (GCTA) to this GWAS data to estimate the heritability of individual cancers, as well as the proportion of heritability attributable to cigarette smoking in smoking-related cancers, and the genetic correlation between pairs of cancers. Results: GWAS heritability was statistically significant at nearly all sites, with the estimates of array-based heritability, h(l)(2), on the liability threshold (LT) scale ranging from 0.05 to 0.38. Estimating the combined heritability of multiple smoking characteristics, we calculate that at least 24% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 14% to 37%) and 7% (95% CI = 4% to 11%) of the heritability for lung and bladder cancer, respectively, can be attributed to genetic determinants of smoking. Most pairs of cancers studied did not show evidence of strong genetic correlation. We found only four pairs of cancers with marginally statistically significant correlations, specifically kidney and testes (rho = 0.73, SE = 0.28), diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and pediatric osteosarcoma (rho = 0.53, SE = 0.21), DLBCL and chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) (rho = 0.51, SE = 0.18), and bladder and lung (rho = 0.35, SE = 0.14). Correlation analysis also indicates that the genetic architecture of lung cancer differs between a smoking population of European ancestry and a nonsmoking Asian population, allowing for the possibility that the genetic etiology for the same disease can vary by population and environmental exposures. Conclusion: Our results provide important insights into the genetic architecture of cancers and suggest new avenues for investigation.
|
|
| 9. |
- Zhu, Zhen-Long, et al.
(author)
-
Cytoplasmic expression of p33(ING1b) is correlated with tumorigenesis and progression of human esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.
- 2013
-
In: Oncology letters. - : Spandidos Publications. - 1792-1074 .- 1792-1082. ; 5:1, s. 161-166
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- p33(ING1b), a newly discovered candidate tumor suppressor gene and a nuclear protein, belongs to the inhibitor of growth gene family. Previous studies have shown that p33(ING1b) is involved in the restriction of cell growth and proliferation, apoptosis, tumor anchorage-independent growth, cellular senescence, maintenance of genomic stability and modulation of cell cycle checkpoints. Loss of nuclear p33(ING1b) has been observed in melanoma, seminoma, papillary thyroid carcinoma, oral squamous cell carcinoma, breast ductal cancer and acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Inactivation and/or decreased expression of p33(ING1b) have been reported in various types of cancer, including head and neck squamous cell, breast, lung, stomach, blood and brain malignancies. Since little is known about the clinicopathological significance of p33(ING1b) in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), this study aimed to investigate the association of p33(ING1b) expression with clinicopathological variables and particularly interesting new cysteine-histidine rich protein (PINCH) in patients with ESCC. p33(ING1b) expression was examined by immunohistochemistry in 20 normal esophageal mucosa and in 64 ESCC specimens. The results revealed that the positive expression of p33(ING1b) protein in normal squamous cells was localized in the nucleus alone and the positive rate was 95%, while in ESCCs, the positive expression was mainly in the cytoplasm, together with nuclear expression, and the positive rate was 36% (P<0.0001). Furthermore, the cases with lymph node metastasis showed a higher frequency of positive cytoplasmic expression than those without metastasis (P=0.001). The cytoplasmic expression of p33(ING1b) was positively related to PINCH expression (P<0.0001) in ESCC, and the cases positive for both proteins had a high lymph node metastasis rate (P=0.001). In conclusion, p33(ING1b) cellular compartmental shift from the nucleus to the cytoplasm may cause loss of normal cellular function and play a central role in the tumorigenesis and metastasis of ESCC.
|
|
| 10. |
- Zhu, Zhen-Long, et al.
(author)
-
PINCH expression and its clinicopathological significance in gastric adenocarcinoma
- 2012
-
In: Disease Markers. - : IOS Press. - 0278-0240 .- 1875-8630. ; 33:4, s. 171-178
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Objective: Particularly interesting new cysteine-histidine rich protein (PINCH) is an important component of the local adhesion complexes and upregulated in several types of malignancies, and involved in the incidence and development of tumours. PINCH expression is also independently correlated with poorer survival in patients with colorectal cancer. However, there is no study of PINCH in gastric cancer, therefore, the aim of this project was to investigate PINCH expression and its clinicopathological significance in gastric adenocarcinoma. less thanbrgreater than less thanbrgreater thanPatients and methods: PINCH expression was immunohistochemically examined in normal gastric mucous (n = 30) and gastric adenocarcinoma (n = 73), from gastric cancer patients. less thanbrgreater than less thanbrgreater thanResults: PINCH expression in the associated-stroma of gastric cancers was heterogeneous, and its positive rate (75%) was higher than that of normal gastric mucosa (43%, X-2 = 9.711, p = 0.002). The stronger staining was observed at the invasive edge of tumour when compared to the inner area of tumour. The rate of positive PINCH (88%) in the cases with lymph node metastasis was higher than that (52%) in the cases without metastasis (X-2 = 11.151, p = 0.001). PINCH expression was not correlated with patients gender, age, tumour size, differentiation and invasion depth (p andgt; 0.05). less thanbrgreater than less thanbrgreater thanConclusion: PINCH protein might play an important role in the tumourigenesis and metastasis of gastric adenocarcinoma.
|
|
