| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- 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.
|
|
| 3. |
- Frentzas, Sophia, et al.
(author)
-
Vessel co-option mediates resistance to anti-angiogenic therapy in liver metastases
- 2016
-
In: Nature Medicine. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1078-8956 .- 1546-170X. ; 22:11, s. 1294-1302
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The efficacy of angiogenesis inhibitors in cancer is limited by resistance mechanisms that are poorly understood. Notably, instead of through the induction of angiogenesis, tumor vascularization can occur through the nonangiogenic mechanism of vessel co-option. Here we show that vessel co-option is associated with a poor response to the anti-angiogenic agent bevacizumab in patients with colorectal cancer liver metastases. Moreover, we find that vessel co-option is also prevalent in human breast cancer liver metastases, a setting in which results with anti-angiogenic therapy have been disappointing. In preclinical mechanistic studies, we found that cancer cell motility mediated by the actin-related protein 2/3 complex (Arp2/3) is required for vessel co-option in liver metastases in vivo and that, in this setting, combined inhibition of angiogenesis and vessel co-option is more effective than the inhibition of angiogenesis alone. Vessel co-option is therefore a clinically relevant mechanism of resistance to anti-angiogenic therapy and combined inhibition of angiogenesis and vessel co-option might be a warranted therapeutic strategy.
|
|
| 4. |
- van Dam, Pieter-Jan, et al.
(author)
-
International consensus guidelines for scoring the histopathological growth patterns of liver metastasis
- 2017
-
In: British Journal of Cancer. - : NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP. - 0007-0920 .- 1532-1827. ; 117:10, s. 1427-1441
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background: Liver metastases present with distinct histopathological growth patterns (HGPs), including the desmoplastic, pushing and replacement HGPs and two rarer HGPs. The HGPs are defined owing to the distinct interface between the cancer cells and the adjacent normal liver parenchyma that is present in each pattern and can be scored from standard haematoxylin-and-eosin-stained (H&E) tissue sections. The current study provides consensus guidelines for scoring these HGPs.Methods: Guidelines for defining the HGPs were established by a large international team. To assess the validity of these guidelines, 12 independent observers scored a set of 159 liver metastases and interobserver variability was measured. In an independent cohort of 374 patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRCLM), the impact of HGPs on overall survival after hepatectomy was determined.Results: Good-to-excellent correlations (intraclass correlation coefficient >0.5) with the gold standard were obtained for the assessment of the replacement HGP and desmoplastic HGP. Overall survival was significantly superior in the desmoplastic HGP subgroup compared with the replacement or pushing HGP subgroup (P=0.006).Conclusions: The current guidelines allow for reproducible determination of liver metastasis HGPs. As HGPs impact overall survival after surgery for CRCLM, they may serve as a novel biomarker for individualised therapies.
|
|
