Displaying all 3 publications

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. Ma B, Khazali A, Shao H, Jiang Y, Wells A
    Cell Commun Signal, 2019 12 12;17(1):164.
    PMID: 31831069 DOI: 10.1186/s12964-019-0489-1
    BACKGROUND: Carcinoma cells shift between epithelial and mesenchymal phenotypes during cancer progression, as defined by surface presentation of the cell-cell cohesion molecule E-cadherin, affecting dissemination, progression and therapy responsiveness. Concomitant with the loss of E-cadherin during the mesenchymal transition, the predominant receptor isoform for ELR-negative CXC ligands shifts from CXCR3-B to CXCR3-A which turns this classical G-protein coupled receptor from an inhibitor to an activator of cell migration, thus promoting tumor cell invasiveness. We proposed that CXCR3 was not just a coordinately changed receptor but actually a regulator of the cell phenotype.

    METHODS: Immunoblotting, immunofluorescence, quantitative real-time PCR and flow cytometry assays investigated the expression of E-cadherin and CXCR3 isoforms. Intrasplenic inoculation of human prostate cancer (PCa) cells with spontaneous metastasis to the liver analyzed E-cadherin and CXCR3-B expression during cancer progression in vivo.

    RESULTS: We found reciprocal regulation of E-cadherin and CXCR3 isoforms. E-cadherin surface expression promoted CXCR3-B presentation on the cell membrane, and to a lesser extent increased its mRNA and total protein levels. In turn, forced expression of CXCR3-A reduced E-cadherin expression level, whereas CXCR3-B increased E-cadherin in PCa. Meanwhile, a positive correlation of E-cadherin and CXCR3-B expression was found both in experimental PCa liver micro-metastases and patients' tissue.

    CONCLUSIONS: CXCR3-B and E-cadherin positively correlated in vitro and in vivo in PCa cells and liver metastases, whereas CXCR3-A negatively regulated E-cadherin expression. These results suggest that CXCR3 isoforms may play important roles in cancer progression and dissemination via diametrically regulating tumor's phenotype.

  2. Hutchinson PJ, Kolias AG, Tajsic T, Adeleye A, Aklilu AT, Apriawan T, et al.
    Acta Neurochir (Wien), 2019 Jul;161(7):1261-1274.
    PMID: 31134383 DOI: 10.1007/s00701-019-03936-y
    BACKGROUND: Two randomised trials assessing the effectiveness of decompressive craniectomy (DC) following traumatic brain injury (TBI) were published in recent years: DECRA in 2011 and RESCUEicp in 2016. As the results have generated debate amongst clinicians and researchers working in the field of TBI worldwide, it was felt necessary to provide general guidance on the use of DC following TBI and identify areas of ongoing uncertainty via a consensus-based approach.

    METHODS: The International Consensus Meeting on the Role of Decompressive Craniectomy in the Management of Traumatic Brain Injury took place in Cambridge, UK, on the 28th and 29th September 2017. The meeting was jointly organised by the World Federation of Neurosurgical Societies (WFNS), AO/Global Neuro and the NIHR Global Health Research Group on Neurotrauma. Discussions and voting were organised around six pre-specified themes: (1) primary DC for mass lesions, (2) secondary DC for intracranial hypertension, (3) peri-operative care, (4) surgical technique, (5) cranial reconstruction and (6) DC in low- and middle-income countries.

    RESULTS: The invited participants discussed existing published evidence and proposed consensus statements. Statements required an agreement threshold of more than 70% by blinded voting for approval.

    CONCLUSIONS: In this manuscript, we present the final consensus-based recommendations. We have also identified areas of uncertainty, where further research is required, including the role of primary DC, the role of hinge craniotomy and the optimal timing and material for skull reconstruction.

  3. Klionsky DJ, Abdel-Aziz AK, Abdelfatah S, Abdellatif M, Abdoli A, Abel S, et al.
    Autophagy, 2021 Jan;17(1):1-382.
    PMID: 33634751 DOI: 10.1080/15548627.2020.1797280
    In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field.
Related Terms
Filters
Contact Us

Please provide feedback to Administrator ([email protected])

External Links