Targeting the EIF2AK1 Signaling Pathway Rescues Red Blood Cell Production in SF3B1 Mutant Myelodysplastic Syndromes With Ringed Sideroblasts

View full abstracthttps://openworks.mdanderson.org/leading-edge/1025/thumbnail.jp

Synthetic Lethal Screen Identifies NF-κB as a Target for Combination Therapy with Topotecan for patients with Neuroblastoma

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Despite aggressive multimodal treatments the overall survival of patients with high-risk neuroblastoma remains poor. The aim of this study was to identify novel combination chemotherapy to improve survival rate in patients with high-risk neuroblastoma.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We took a synthetic lethal approach using a siRNA library targeting 418 apoptosis-related genes and identified genes and pathways whose inhibition synergized with topotecan. Microarray analyses of cells treated with topotecan were performed to identify if the same genes or pathways were altered by the drug. An inhibitor of this pathway was used in combination with topotecan to confirm synergism by <it>in vitro </it>and <it>in vivo </it>studies.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We found that there were nine genes whose suppression synergized with topotecan to enhance cell death, and the NF-κB signaling pathway was significantly enriched. Microarray analysis of cells treated with topotecan revealed a significant enrichment of NF-κB target genes among the differentially altered genes, suggesting that NF-κB pathway was activated in the treated cells. Combination of topotecan and known NF-κB inhibitors (NSC 676914 or bortezomib) significantly reduced cell growth and induced caspase 3 activity <it>in vitro</it>. Furthermore, in a neuroblastoma xenograft mouse model, combined treatment of topotecan and bortezomib significantly delayed tumor formation compared to single-drug treatments.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Synthetic lethal screening provides a rational approach for selecting drugs for use in combination therapy and warrants clinical evaluation of the efficacy of the combination of topotecan and bortezomib or other NF-κB inhibitors in patients with high risk neuroblastoma.</p

Synergistic Antitumor Effects of Novel HDAC Inhibitors and Paclitaxel In Vitro and In Vivo

Preclinical studies support the therapeutic potential of histone deacetylases inhibitors (HDACi) in combination with taxanes. The efficacy of combination has been mainly ascribed to a cooperative effect on microtubule stabilization following tubulin acetylation. In the present study we investigated the effect of paclitaxel in combination with two novel HDACi, ST2782 or ST3595, able to induce p53 and tubulin hyperacetylation. A synergistic effect of the paclitaxel/ST2782 (or ST3595) combination was found in wild-type p53 ovarian carcinoma cells, but not in a p53 mutant subline, in spite of a marked tubulin acetylation. Such a synergistic interaction was confirmed in additional human solid tumor cell lines harboring wild-type p53 but not in those expressing mutant or null p53. In addition, a synergistic cytotoxic effect was found when ST2782 was combined with the depolymerising agent vinorelbine. In contrast to SAHA, which was substantially less effective in sensitizing cells to paclitaxel-induced apoptosis, ST2782 prevented up-regulation of p21WAF1/Cip1 by paclitaxel, which has a protective role in response to taxanes, and caused p53 down-regulation, acetylation and mitochondrial localization of acetylated p53. The synergistic antitumor effects of the paclitaxel/ST3595 combination were confirmed in two tumor xenograft models. Our results support the relevance of p53 modulation as a major determinant of the synergistic interaction observed between paclitaxel and novel HDACi and emphasize the therapeutic interest of this combination

Towards neuro-inspired symbolic models of cognition: linking neural dynamics to behaviors through asynchronous communications

A computational architecture modeling the relation between perception and action is proposed. Basic brain processes representing synaptic plasticity are first abstracted through asynchronous communication protocols and implemented as virtual microcircuits. These are used in turn to build mesoscale circuits embodying parallel cognitive processes. Encoding these circuits into symbolic expressions gives finally rise to neuro-inspired programs that are compiled into pseudo-code to be interpreted by a virtual machine. Quantitative evaluation measures are given by the modification of synapse weights over time. This approach is illustrated by models of simple forms of behaviors exhibiting cognition up to the third level of animal awareness. As a potential benefit, symbolic models of emergent psychological mechanisms could lead to the discovery of the learning processes involved in the development of cognition. The executable specifications of an experimental platform allowing for the reproduction of simulated experiments are given in “Appendix”

Effects of fungicides and bactericides on orchid seed germination and shoot tip cultures in vitro

Amphotericin B, benomyl, gentamycin, nystatin, quintozene penicillin G, sodium omadine, and vancomycin singly and in several combinations have no deleterious effects on the germination of orchid seeds, but inhibit the growth in vitro of shoot tip explants. © 1981 Martinus Nijhoff/Dr W. Junk Publishers

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)1.

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

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition)

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. For example, 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 versus those that measure fl ux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process including the amount and rate of cargo sequestered and degraded). In particular, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation must be differentiated from stimuli that increase autophagic activity, defi ned as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (inmost 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 fi eld 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. It is worth emphasizing here that lysosomal digestion is a stage of autophagy and evaluating its competence is a crucial part of the evaluation of autophagic flux, or complete autophagy. 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. Along these lines, because of the potential for pleiotropic effects due to blocking autophagy through genetic manipulation it is imperative to delete or knock down more than one autophagy-related gene. In addition, some individual Atg proteins, or groups of proteins, are involved in other cellular pathways so not all Atg proteins can be used as a specific marker for an autophagic process. 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