Routine Clinically Detected Increased ROS1 Transcripts Are Related With ROS1 Expression by Immunohistochemistry and Associated With EGFR Mutations in Lung Adenocarcinoma

Introduction: Translocations of the ROS1 gene were found to drive tumorigenesis in 1% to 2% of lung adenocarcinoma. In clinical practice, ROS1 rearrangements are often screened by immunohistochemistry (IHC) before confirmation with either fluorescence in situ hybridization or molecular techniques. This screening test leads to a non-negligible number of cases that have equivocal or positive ROS1 IHC, without ROS1 translocation. Methods: In this study, we have analyzed retrospectively 1021 cases of nonsquamous NSCLC having both ROS1 IHC and molecular analysis using next-generation sequencing. Results: ROS1 IHC was negative in 938 cases (91.9%), equivocal in 65 cases (6.4%), and positive in 18 cases (1.7%). Among these 83 equivocal or positive cases, only two were ROS1 rearranged, leading to a low predictive positive value of the IHC test (2%). ROS1-positive IHC was correlated with an increased mRNA ROS1 transcripts. Moreover, we have found a mean statistically significant relationship between ROS1 expression and EGFR gene mutations, suggesting a crosstalk mechanism between these oncogenic driver molecules. Conclusion: This study demonstrates that ROS1 IHC represents true ROS1 mRNA expression, and raises the question of a potential benefit of combined targeted therapy in EGFR-mutated NSCLC

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

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

Erratum to: Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition) (Autophagy, 12, 1, 1-222, 10.1080/15548627.2015.1100356

non present