KRAS mutation is present in a small subset of primary urinary bladder adenocarcinomas.

Histopathology KRAS mutation is present in a small subset of primary urinary bladder adenocarcinomas Aims:  To determine whether KRAS mutations occur in primary bladder adenocarcinoma. Methods and results:  Twenty-six cases of primary urinary bladder adenocarcinoma were analysed. DNA was extracted from formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue and amplified with shifted termination assay technology, which recognizes wild-type or mutant target sequences and selectively extends detection primers with labelled nucleotides. A mutation in KRAS was found in three (11.5%) of 26 primary bladder adenocarcinomas. Two of these three cases exhibited a G13D mutation, whereas the remaining case contained a mutation in G12V. None of the ten cases of urothelial carcinoma with glandular differentiation displayed KRAS mutation. Colonic adenocarcinoma contained a KRAS mutation in 18 (33%) of 55 cases. There was no distinct difference with regard to grade, stage or outcome according to the limited clinicopathological data available. However, the two youngest patients, aged 32 and 39 years, in our study group, with a mean population age of 61 years, were found to have mutations in KRAS. Conclusions:  KRAS mutations are present in a small subset of primary urinary bladder adenocarcinomas. Future clinical trials for treatment of bladder adenocarcinoma, employing targeted therapies similar to those used for treatment of colon cancer, may also benefit from the predictive implications of KRAS mutational testing

Microglia states and nomenclature: A field at its crossroads

Microglial research has advanced considerably in recent decades yet has been constrained by a rolling series of dichotomies such as "resting versus activated" and "M1 versus M2." This dualistic classification of good or bad microglia is inconsistent with the wide repertoire of microglial states and functions in development, plasticity, aging, and diseases that were elucidated in recent years. New designations continuously arising in an attempt to describe the different microglial states, notably defined using transcriptomics and proteomics, may easily lead to a misleading, although unintentional, coupling of categories and functions. To address these issues, we assembled a group of multidisciplinary experts to discuss our current understanding of microglial states as a dynamic concept and the importance of addressing microglial function. Here, we provide a conceptual framework and recommendations on the use of microglial nomenclature for researchers, reviewers, and editors, which will serve as the foundations for a future white paper