Interaction between FGFR-2, STAT5, and progesterone receptors in breast cancer

Fibroblast growth factor (FGF) receptor 2 (FGFR-2) polymorphisms have been associated with an increase in estrogen receptor and progesterone receptor (PR)-positive breast cancer risk; however, a clear mechanistic association between FGFR-2 and steroid hormone receptors remains elusive. In previous works, we have shown a cross talk between FGF2 and progestins in mouse mammary carcinomas. To investigate the mechanisms underlying these interactions and to validate our findings in a human setting, we have used T47D human breast cancer cells and human cancer tissue samples. We showed that medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) and FGF2 induced cell proliferation and activation of ERK, AKT, and STAT5 in T47D and in murine C4-HI cells. Nuclear interaction between PR, FGFR-2, and STAT5 after MPA and FGF2 treatment was also showed by confocal microscopy and immunoprecipitation. This effect was associated with increased transcription of PRE and/or GAS reporter genes, and of PR/STAT5-regulated genes and proteins. Two antiprogestins and the FGFR inhibitor PD173074, specifically blocked the effects induced by FGF2 or MPA respectively. The presence of PR/FGFR-2/ STAT5 complexes bound to the PRE probe was corroborated by using NoShift transcription and chromatin immunoprecipitation of the MYC promoter. Additionally, we showed that T47D cells stably transfected with constitutively active FGFR-2 gave rise to invasive carcinomas when transplanted into NOD/SCID mice. Nuclear colocalization between PR and FGFR-2/STAT5 was also observed in human breast cancer tissues. This study represents the first demonstration of a nuclear interaction between FGFR-2 and STAT5, as PR coactivators at the DNA progesterone responsive elements, suggesting that FGFRs are valid therapeutic targets for human breast cancer treatment. ©2011 AACR.Fil: Cerliani, Juan Pablo. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Instituto de Biología y Medicina Experimental. Fundación de Instituto de Biología y Medicina Experimental. Instituto de Biología y Medicina Experimental; ArgentinaFil: Guillardoy, Tomás. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Instituto de Biología y Medicina Experimental. Fundación de Instituto de Biología y Medicina Experimental. Instituto de Biología y Medicina Experimental; ArgentinaFil: Giulianelli, Sebastian Jesus. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Instituto de Biología y Medicina Experimental. Fundación de Instituto de Biología y Medicina Experimental. Instituto de Biología y Medicina Experimental; ArgentinaFil: Vaque, José P.. National Institutes of Health; Estados UnidosFil: Gutkind JS. National Institutes of Health; Estados UnidosFil: Vanzulli, Silvia. Academia Nacional de Medicina de Buenos Aires; ArgentinaFil: Martins, Rubén. Clínica Bancaria; ArgentinaFil: Zeitlin, Eduardo. Clínica Bancaria; ArgentinaFil: Lamb, Caroline Ana. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Instituto de Biología y Medicina Experimental. Fundación de Instituto de Biología y Medicina Experimental. Instituto de Biología y Medicina Experimental; ArgentinaFil: Lanari, Claudia Lee Malvina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Instituto de Biología y Medicina Experimental. Fundación de Instituto de Biología y Medicina Experimental. Instituto de Biología y Medicina Experimental; Argentin

THE DOSIS 3D PROJECT ON-BOARD THE INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION – STATUS AND SCIENCE OVERVIEW OF 8 YEARS OF MEASUREMENTS (2012 – 2020)

The radiation environment encountered in space differs in nature from that on Earth, consisting mostly of highly energetic ions from protons up to iron, resulting in radiation levels far exceeding the ones present on Earth for occupational radiation workers. Since the beginning of the space era the radiation exposure during space missions has been monitored with various passive and active radiation instruments. Also on-board the International Space Station (ISS) a number of area monitoring devices provide data related to the spatial and temporal variation of the radiation field in – and outside the ISS. The aim of the DOSIS 3D (2012 - ongoing) experiment is the measurement of the radiation environment within the European Columbus Laboratory of the ISS. These measurements are, on the one hand, performed with passive radiation detectors mounted at eleven locations within Columbus for the determination of the spatial distribution of the radiation field parameters and, on the other hand, with two active radiation detectors (DOSTEL) mounted at a fixed position inside Columbus for the determination of the temporal variation of the radiation field parameters. The talk will give an overview of the current results of the data evaluation performed for the passive and active radiation detectors for DOSIS 3D in the years 2012 to 2020 and further focus on the work in progress for data comparison with other passive and active radiation detector systems measuring on-board the ISS

Isotope ratios of H, C, and O in CO2 and H2O of the Martian atmosphere

Stable isotope ratios of H, C, and O are powerful indicators of a wide variety of planetary geophysical processes, and for Mars they reveal the record of loss of its atmosphere and subsequent interactions with its surface such as carbonate formation. We report in situ measurements of the isotopic ratios of D/H and O-18/O-16 in water and C-13/C-12, O-18/O-16, O-17/O-16, and (CO)-C-13-O-18/(CO)-C-12-O-16 in carbon dioxide, made in the martian atmosphere at Gale Crater from the Curiosity rover using the Sample Analysis at Mars (SAM)'s tunable laser spectrometer (TLS). Comparison between our measurements in the modern atmosphere and those of martian meteorites such as ALH 84001 implies that the martian reservoirs of CO2 and H2O were largely established similar to 4 billion years ago, but that atmospheric loss or surface interaction may be still ongoing

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field