SFRP1 reduction results in an increased sensitivity to TGF-β signaling

Background Transforming growth factor (TGF)-β plays a dual role during mammary gland development and tumorigenesis and has been shown to stimulate epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) as well as cellular migration. The Wnt/β-catenin pathway is also implicated in EMT and inappropriate activation of the Wnt/β-catenin signaling pathway leads to the development of several human cancers, including breast cancer. Secreted frizzled-related protein 1 (SFRP1) antagonizes this pathway and loss of SFRP1 expression is frequently observed in breast tumors and breast cancer cell lines. We previously showed that when SFRP1 is knocked down in immortalized non-malignant mammary epithelial cells, the cells (TERT-siSFRP1) acquire characteristics associated with breast tumor initiating cells. The phenotypic and genotypic changes that occur in response to SFRP1 loss are consistent with EMT, including a substantial increase in the expression of ZEB2. Considering that ZEB2 has been shown to interact with mediators of TGF-β signaling, we sought to determine whether TGF-β signaling is altered in TERT-siSFRP1 cells. Methods Luciferase reporter assays and real-time PCR analysis were employed to measure TGF-β transcriptional targets. Western blot analysis was used to evaluate TGF-β-mediated ERK1/2 phosphorylation. Migration chamber assays were utilized to quantify cellular migration. TERT-siSFRP1 cells were transfected with Stealth RNAi™ siRNA in order to knock-down the expression of ZEB2. Results TERT-siSFRP1 cells exhibit a significant increase in both TGF-β-mediated luciferase activity as well as TGF-β transcriptional targets, including Integrin β3 and PAI-1. Phosphorylation of ERK1/2 is increased in TERT-siSFRP1 cells in response to enhanced TGF-β signaling. Furthermore, when the TGF-β pathway is blocked with a TGF-βR antagonist (LY364947), cellular migration is significantly hindered. Finally, we found that when ZEB2 is knocked-down, there is a significant reduction in the expression of exogeneous and endogenous TGF-β transcriptional targets and cellular migration is impeded. Conclusions We demonstrate that down-regulation of SFRP1 renders mammary epithelial cells more sensitive to TGF-β signaling which can be partially ameliorated by blocking the expression of ZEB2

Speech Communication

Contains table of contents for Part V, table of contents for Section 1, reports on six research projects and a list of publications.C.J. Lebel FellowshipDennis Klatt Memorial FundNational Institutes of Health Grant R01-DC00075National Institutes of Health Grant R01-DC01291National Institutes of Health Grant R01-DC01925National Institutes of Health Grant R01-DC02125National Institutes of Health Grant R01-DC02978National Institutes of Health Grant R01-DC03007National Institutes of Health Grant R29-DC02525National Institutes of Health Grant F32-DC00194National Institutes of Health Grant F32-DC00205National Institutes of Health Grant T32-DC00038National Science Foundation Grant IRI 89-05249National Science Foundation Grant IRI 93-14967National Science Foundation Grant INT 94-2114

Communication interventions for autism spectrum disorder in minimally verbal children

Background Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) has an estimated prevalence of around 1.7% of the population. People with ASD often also have language difficulties, and about 25% to 30% of children with ASD either fail to develop functional language or are minimally verbal. The ability to communicate effectively is an essential life skill, and difficulties with communication can have a range of adverse outcomes, including poorer academic achievement, behavioural difficulties and reduced quality of life. Historically, most studies have investigated communication interventions for ASD in verbal children. We cannot assume the same interventions will work for minimally verbal children with ASD. Objectives To assess the effects of communication interventions for ASD in minimally verbal children. Search methods We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase as well as 12 other databases and three trials registers in November 2017. We also checked the reference lists of all included studies and relevant reviews, contacting experts in the field as well as authors of identified studies about other potentially relevant ongoing and unpublished studies. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of communication‐focused interventions for children (under 12 years of age) diagnosed with ASD and who are minimally verbal (fewer than 30 functional words or unable to use speech alone to communicate), compared with no treatment, wait‐list control or treatment as usual. Data collection and analysis We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Main results This review includes two RCTs (154 children aged 32 months to 11 years) of communication interventions for ASD in minimally verbal children compared with a control group (treatment as usual). One RCT used a verbally based intervention (focused playtime intervention; FPI) administered by parents in the home, whereas the other used an alternative and augmentative communication (AAC) intervention (Picture Exchange Communication System; PECS) administered by teachers in a school setting. The FPI study took place in the USA and included 70 participants (64 boys) aged 32 to 82 months who were minimally verbal and had received a diagnosis of ASD. This intervention focused on developing coordinated toy play between child and parent. Participants received 12 in‐home parent training sessions for 90 minutes per session for 12 weeks, and they were also invited to attend parent advocacy coaching sessions. This study was funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, the MIND Institute Research Program and a Professional Staff Congress‐City University of New York grant. The PECS study included 84 minimally verbal participants (73 boys) aged 4 to 11 years who had a formal diagnosis of ASD and who were not using PECS beyond phase 1 at baseline. All children attended autism‐specific classes or units, and most classes had a child to adult ratio of 2:1. Teachers and parents received PECS training (two‐day workshop). PECS consultants also conducted six half‐day consultations with each class once per month over five months. This study took place in the UK and was funded by the Three Guineas Trust. Both included studies had high or unclear risk of bias in at least four of the seven 'Risk of bias' categories, with a lack of blinding for participants and personnel being the most problematic area. Using the GRADE approach, we rated the overall quality of the evidence as very low due to risk of bias, imprecision (small sample sizes and wide confidence intervals) and because there was only one trial identified per type of intervention (i.e. verbally based or AAC). Both studies focused primarily on communication outcomes (verbal and non‐verbal). One of the studies also collected information on social communication. The FPI study found no significant improvement in spoken communication, measured using the expressive language domain of the Mullen Scale of Early Learning expressive language, at postintervention. However, this study found that children with lower expressive language at baseline (less than 11.3 months age‐equivalent) improved more than children with better expressive language and that the intervention produced expressive language gains in some children. The PECS study found that children enrolled in the AAC intervention were significantly more likely to use verbal initiations and PECS symbols immediately postintervention; however, gains were not maintained 10 months later. There was no evidence that AAC improved frequency of speech, verbal expressive vocabulary or children's social communication or pragmatic language immediately postintervention. Overall, neither of the interventions (PECS or FPI) resulted in maintained improvements in spoken or non‐verbal communication in most children. Neither study collected information on adverse events, other communication skills, quality of life or behavioural outcomes. Authors' conclusions There is limited evidence that verbally based and ACC interventions improve spoken and non‐verbal communication in minimally verbal children with ASD. A substantial number of studies have investigated communication interventions for minimally verbal children with ASD, yet only two studies met inclusion criteria for this review, and we considered the overall quality of the evidence to be very low. In the study that used an AAC intervention, there were significant gains in frequency of PECS use and verbal and non‐verbal initiations, but not in expressive vocabulary or social communication immediately postintervention. In the study that investigated a verbally based intervention, there were no significant gains in expressive language postintervention, but children with lower expressive language at the beginning of the study improved more than those with better expressive language at baseline. Neither study investigated adverse events, other communication skills, quality of life or behavioural outcomes. Future RCTs that compare two interventions and include a control group will allow us to better understand treatment effects in the context of spontaneous maturation and will allow further comparison of different interventions as well as the investigation of moderating factors