| 1. |
- 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.
|
|
| 2. |
- de Azambuja, Evandro, et al.
(author)
-
The effect of body mass index on overall and disease-free survival in node-positive breast cancer patients treated with docetaxel and doxorubicin-containing adjuvant chemotherapy: the experience of the BIG 02-98 trial
- 2010
-
In: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0167-6806 .- 1573-7217. ; 119:1, s. 145-153
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background: Obesity has been shown to be an indicator of poor prognosis for patients with primary breast cancer (BC) regardless of the use of adjuvant systemic therapy. Patients and methods: This is a retrospective analysis of 2,887 node-positive BC patients enrolled in the BIG 02-98 adjuvant study, a randomised phase III trial whose primary objective was to evaluate disease-free survival (DFS) by adding docetaxel to doxorubicin-based chemotherapy. In the current analysis, the effect of body mass index (BMI) on DFS and overall survival (OS) was assessed. BMI was obtained before the first cycle of chemotherapy. Obesity was defined as a BMI a parts per thousand yen 30 kg/mA(2). Results: In total, 547 (19%) patients were obese at baseline, while 2,340 (81%) patients were non-obese. Estimated 5-year OS was 87.5% for non-obese and 82.9% for obese patients (HR 1.34; P = 0.013). Estimated 5-years DFS was 75.9% for non-obese and 70.0% for obese patients (HR 1.20; P = 0.041). In a multivariate model, obesity remained an independent prognostic factor for OS and DFS. Conclusions: In this study, obesity was associated with poorer outcome in node-positive BC patients. Given the increasing prevalence of obesity worldwide, more research on improving the treatment of obese BC patients is needed.
|
|
