Stratification of radiosensitive brain metastases based on an actionable S100A9/RAGE resistance mechanism

© The Author(s) 2022. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.Whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT) is the treatment backbone for many patients with brain metastasis; however, its efficacy in preventing disease progression and the associated toxicity have questioned the clinical impact of this approach and emphasized the need for alternative treatments. Given the limited therapeutic options available for these patients and the poor understanding of the molecular mechanisms underlying the resistance of metastatic lesions to WBRT, we sought to uncover actionable targets and biomarkers that could help to refine patient selection. Through an unbiased analysis of experimental in vivo models of brain metastasis resistant to WBRT, we identified activation of the S100A9-RAGE-NF-κB-JunB pathway in brain metastases as a potential mediator of resistance in this organ. Targeting this pathway genetically or pharmacologically was sufficient to revert the WBRT resistance and increase therapeutic benefits in vivo at lower doses of radiation. In patients with primary melanoma, lung or breast adenocarcinoma developing brain metastasis, endogenous S100A9 levels in brain lesions correlated with clinical response to WBRT and underscored the potential of S100A9 levels in the blood as a noninvasive biomarker. Collectively, we provide a molecular framework to personalize WBRT and improve its efficacy through combination with a radiosensitizer that balances therapeutic benefit and toxicity.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Common variants in Alzheimer's disease and risk stratification by polygenic risk scores.

Funder: Funder: Fundación bancaria ‘La Caixa’ Number: LCF/PR/PR16/51110003 Funder: Grifols SA Number: LCF/PR/PR16/51110003 Funder: European Union/EFPIA Innovative Medicines Initiative Joint Number: 115975 Funder: JPco-fuND FP-829-029 Number: 733051061Genetic discoveries of Alzheimer's disease are the drivers of our understanding, and together with polygenetic risk stratification can contribute towards planning of feasible and efficient preventive and curative clinical trials. We first perform a large genetic association study by merging all available case-control datasets and by-proxy study results (discovery n = 409,435 and validation size n = 58,190). Here, we add six variants associated with Alzheimer's disease risk (near APP, CHRNE, PRKD3/NDUFAF7, PLCG2 and two exonic variants in the SHARPIN gene). Assessment of the polygenic risk score and stratifying by APOE reveal a 4 to 5.5 years difference in median age at onset of Alzheimer's disease patients in APOE ɛ4 carriers. Because of this study, the underlying mechanisms of APP can be studied to refine the amyloid cascade and the polygenic risk score provides a tool to select individuals at high risk of Alzheimer's disease

Association of rare APOE missense variants V236E and R251G with risk of Alzheimer disease

IMPORTANCE The APOE epsilon 2 and APOE epsilon 4 alleles are the strongest protective and risk-increasing, respectively, genetic variants for late-onset Alzheimer disease (AD). However, the mechanisms linking APOE to AD-particularly the apoE protein's role in AD pathogenesis and how this is affected by APOE variants-remain poorly understood. Identifying missense variants in addition to APOE epsilon 2 and APOE epsilon 4 could provide critical new insights, but given the low frequency of additional missense variants, AD genetic cohorts have previously been too small to interrogate this question robustly. OBJECTIVE To determine whether rare missense variants on APOE are associated with AD risk. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Association with case-control status was tested in a sequenced discovery sample (stage 1) and followed up in several microarray imputed cohorts as well as the UK Biobank whole-exome sequencing resource using a proxy-AD phenotype (stages 2 and 3). This study combined case-control, family-based, population-based, and longitudinal AD-related cohorts that recruited referred and volunteer participants. Stage 1 induded 37 409 nonunique participants of European or admixed European ancestry, with 11868 individuals with AD and 11 934 controls passing analysis inclusion criteria. In stages 2 and 3, 475 473 participants were considered across 8 cohorts, of which 84513 individuals with AD and proxy-AD and 328 372 controls passed inclusion criteria. Selection criteria were cohort specific, and this study was performed a posteriori on individuals who were genotyped. Among the available genotypes, 76 195 were excluded. All data were retrieved between September 2015 and November 2021 and analyzed between April and November 2021. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES In primary analyses, the AD risk associated with each missense variant was estimated, as appropriate, with either linear mixed-model regression or logistic regression. In secondary analyses, associations were estimated with age at onset using linear mixed-model regression and risk of conversion to AD using competing-risk regression. RESULTS A total of 544 384 participants were analyzed in the primary case-control analysis; 312 476 (57.4%) were female, and the mean (SD; range) age was 64.9 (15.2; 40-110) years. Two missense variants were associated with a 2-fold to 3-fold decreased AD risk: APOE epsilon 4 (R251G) (odds ratio, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.33-0.59; P = 4.7 x 10(-8)) and APOE epsilon 3 (V236E) (odds ratio, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.25-0.56; P = 1.9 x 10(-6)). Additionally, the cumulative incidence of AD in carriers of these variants was found to grow more slowly with age compared with noncarriers. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this genetic association study, a novel variant associated with AD was identified: R251G always coinherited with epsilon 4 on the APOE gene, which mitigates the epsilon 4-associated AD risk. The protective effect of the V236E variant, which is always coinherited with epsilon 3 on the APOE gene, was also confirmed. The location of these variants confirms that the carboxyl-terminal portion of apoE plays an important role in AD pathogenesis. The large risk reductions reported here suggest that protein chemistry and functional assays of these variants should be pursued, as they have the potential to guide drug development targeting APOE

Genome-wide meta-analysis for Alzheimer's disease cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers

Amyloid-beta 42 (Aβ42) and phosphorylated tau (pTau) levels in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) reflect core features of the pathogenesis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) more directly than clinical diagnosis. Initiated by the European Alzheimer & Dementia Biobank (EADB), the largest collaborative effort on genetics underlying CSF biomarkers was established, including 31 cohorts with a total of 13,116 individuals (discovery n = 8074; replication n = 5042 individuals). Besides the APOE locus, novel associations with two other well-established AD risk loci were observed; CR1 was shown a locus for Aβ42 and BIN1 for pTau. GMNC and C16orf95 were further identified as loci for pTau, of which the latter is novel. Clustering methods exploring the influence of all known AD risk loci on the CSF protein levels, revealed 4 biological categories suggesting multiple Aβ42 and pTau related biological pathways involved in the etiology of AD. In functional follow-up analyses, GMNC and C16orf95 both associated with lateral ventricular volume, implying an overlap in genetic etiology for tau levels and brain ventricular volume

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