Significance of somatic mutations and content alteration of mitochondrial DNA in esophageal cancer

BACKGROUND: The roles of mitochondria in energy metabolism, the generation of ROS, aging, and the initiation of apoptosis have implicated their importance in tumorigenesis. In this study we aim to establish the mutation spectrum and to understand the role of somatic mtDNA mutations in esophageal cancer. METHODS: The entire mitochondrial genome was screened for somatic mutations in 20 pairs (18 esophageal squamous cell carcinomas, one adenosquamous carcinoma and one adenocarcinoma) of tumor/surrounding normal tissue of esophageal cancers, using temporal temperature gradient gel electrophoresis (TTGE), followed by direct DNA sequencing to identify the mutations. RESULTS: Fourteen somatic mtDNA mutations were identified in 55% (11/20) of tumors analyzed, including 2 novel missense mutations and a frameshift mutation in ND4L, ATP6 subunit, and ND4 genes respectively. Nine mutations (64%) were in the D-loop region. Numerous germline variations were found, at least 10 of them were novel and five were missense mutations, some of them occurred in evolutionarily conserved domains. Using real-time quantitative PCR analysis, the mtDNA content was found to increase in some tumors and decrease in others. Analysis of molecular and other clinicopathological findings does not reveal significant correlation between somatic mtDNA mutations and mtDNA content, or between mtDNA content and metastatic status. CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrate that somatic mtDNA mutations in esophageal cancers are frequent. Some missense and frameshift mutations may play an important role in the tumorigenesis of esophageal carcinoma. More extensive biochemical and molecular studies will be necessary to determine the pathological significance of these somatic mutations

Biogenesis and Dynamics of Mitochondria during the Cell Cycle: Significance of 3′UTRs

Nowadays, we are facing a renaissance of mitochondria in cancer biology. However, our knowledge of the basic cell biology and on the timing and mechanisms that control the biosynthesis of mitochondrial constituents during progression through the cell cycle of mammalian cells remain largely unknown. Herein, we document the in vivo changes on mitochondrial morphology and dynamics that accompany cellular mitosis, and illustrate the following key points of the biogenesis of mitochondria during progression of liver cells through the cycle: (i) the replication of nuclear and mitochondrial genomes is synchronized during cellular proliferation, (ii) the accretion of OXPHOS proteins is asynchronously regulated during proliferation being the synthesis of β-F1-ATPase and Hsp60 carried out also at G2/M and, (iii) the biosynthesis of cardiolipin is achieved during the S phase, although full development of the mitochondrial membrane potential (ΔΨm) is attained at G2/M. Furthermore, we demonstrate using reporter constructs that the mechanism regulating the accretion of β-F1-ATPase during cellular proliferation is controlled at the level of mRNA translation by the 3′UTR of the transcript. The 3′UTR-driven synthesis of the protein at G2/M is essential for conferring to the daughter cells the original phenotype of the parental cell. Our findings suggest that alterations on this process may promote deregulated β-F1-ATPase expression in human cancer

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