Congenital hypertrophy of the retinal pigment epithelium (CHRPE) in familial colorectal cancer

B ackground and aim: Congenital hypertrophy of the retinal pigment epithelium (CHRPE) is a pigmented fundus lesion associated with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP). CHRPE prevalence has been reported to be increased in subjects with familial or sporadic non-polyposis colorectal cancer (CRC), suggesting that some individuals with non-polyposis CRC have an attenuated form of FAP. Other studies have not confirmed these clinical observations and have failed to identify mutations in the gene responsible for FAP, but the reason for the discrepancy in relation to CHRPE prevalence has not been resolved. We determined the prevalence of CHRPE in subjects without CRC (negative control cohort), subjects with FAP (positive control cohort), and subjects with familial non-polyposis CRC (test cohort). Method: A cohort study consisting of 37 negative control subjects, 9 positive control subjects with documented APC gene mutations, and 36 test subjects with familial non-polyposis CRC but no identified pathogenic APC gene mutation. The diagnosis of hereditary non-polyposis colon cancer was excluded in the test cohort by testing for microsatellite instability in tumour tissue. Results: None of the 37 people in the negative control group had CHRPE. Five of nine (56%) patients with FAP had multiple CHRPE lesions. None of the 36 subjects in the test cohort had CHRPE lesions. Conclusions: Ophthalmoscopy may contribute to risk assessment in families with FAP but not in familial non-polyposis CRC. Care must be exercised when interpreting pigmented fundus lesions because 8–13% of subjects in each of the cohorts had pigmented retinal lesions that were not CHRPE. Bilateral lesions and lesions with a depigmented halo␣were the hallmarks of CHRPE associated with FAP.Celia S. Chen, Kerry D. Phillips, Scott Grist, Graeme Bennet, Jamie E. Craig, James S. Muecke, Graeme K. Suther

Genome-wide association scan identifies a colorectal cancer susceptibility locus on 11q23 and replicates risk loci at 8q24 and 18q21

In a genome-wide association study to identify loci associated with colorectal cancer (CRC) risk, we genotyped 555,510 SNPs in 1,012 early-onset Scottish CRC cases and 1,012 controls (phase 1). In phase 2, we genotyped the 15,008 highest-ranked SNPs in 2,057 Scottish cases and 2,111 controls. We then genotyped the five highest-ranked SNPs from the joint phase 1 and 2 analysis in 14,500 cases and 13,294 controls from seven populations, and identified a previously unreported association, rs3802842 on 11q23 (OR = 1.1; P = 5.8 10-10), showing population differences in risk. We also replicated and fine-mapped associations at 8q24 (rs7014346; OR = 1.19; P = 8.6 10-26) and 18q21 (rs4939827; OR = 1.2; P = 7.8 10-28). Risk was greater for rectal than for colon cancer for rs3802842 (P < 0.008) and rs4939827 (P < 0.009). Carrying all six possible risk alleles yielded OR = 2.6 (95% CI = 1.75–3.89) for CRC. These findings extend our understanding of the role of common genetic variation in CRC etiology

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

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