Progastrin Represses the Alternative Activation of Human Macrophages and Modulates Their Influence on Colon Cancer Epithelial Cells

Macrophage infiltration is a negative prognostic factor for most cancers but gastrointestinal tumors seem to be an exception. The effect of macrophages on cancer progression depends on their phenotype, which may vary between M1 (pro-inflammatory, defensive) to M2 (tolerogenic, pro-tumoral). Gastrointestinal cancers often become an ectopic source of gastrins and macrophages present receptors for these peptides. The aim of the present study is to analyze whether gastrins can affect the pattern of macrophage infiltration in colorectal tumors. We have evaluated the relationship between gastrin expression and the pattern of macrophage infiltration in samples from colorectal cancer and the influence of these peptides on the phenotype of macrophages differentiated from human peripheral monocytes in vitro. The total number of macrophages (CD68+ cells) was similar in tumoral and normal surrounding tissue, but the number of M2 macrophages (CD206+ cells) was significantly higher in the tumor. However, the number of these tumor-associated M2 macrophages correlated negatively with the immunoreactivity for gastrin peptides in tumor epithelial cells. Macrophages differentiated from human peripheral monocytes in the presence of progastrin showed lower levels of M2-markers (CD206, IL10) with normal amounts of M1-markers (CD86, IL12). Progastrin induced similar effects in mature macrophages treated with IL4 to obtain a M2-phenotype or with LPS plus IFNγ to generate M1-macrophages. Macrophages differentiated in the presence of progastrin presented a reduced expression of Wnt ligands and decreased the number and increased cell death of co-cultured colorectal cancer epithelial cells. Our results suggest that progastrin inhibits the acquisition of a M2-phenotype in human macrophages. This effect exerted on tumor associated macrophages may modulate cancer progression and should be taken into account when analyzing the therapeutic value of gastrin immunoneutralization

Shiga Toxin 1 Induces on Lipopolysaccharide-Treated Astrocytes the Release of Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha that Alter Brain-Like Endothelium Integrity

The hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS) is characterized by hemolytic anemia, thrombocytopenia and renal dysfunction. The typical form of HUS is generally associated with infections by Gram-negative Shiga toxin (Stx)-producing Escherichia coli (STEC). Endothelial dysfunction induced by Stx is central, but bacterial lipopolysaccharide (LPS) and neutrophils (PMN) contribute to the pathophysiology. Although renal failure is characteristic of this syndrome, neurological complications occur in severe cases and is usually associated with death. Impaired blood-brain barrier (BBB) is associated with damage to cerebral endothelial cells (ECs) that comprise the BBB. Astrocytes (ASTs) are inflammatory cells in the brain and determine the BBB function. ASTs are in close proximity to ECs, hence the study of the effects of Stx1 and LPS on ASTs, and the influence of their response on ECs is essential. We have previously demonstrated that Stx1 and LPS induced activation of rat ASTs and the release of inflammatory factors such as TNF-α, nitric oxide and chemokines. Here, we demonstrate that rat ASTs-derived factors alter permeability of ECs with brain properties (HUVECd); suggesting that functional properties of BBB could also be affected. Additionally, these factors activate HUVECd and render them into a proagregant state promoting PMN and platelets adhesion. Moreover, these effects were dependent on ASTs secreted-TNF-α. Stx1 and LPS-induced ASTs response could influence brain ECs integrity and BBB function once Stx and factors associated to the STEC infection reach the brain parenchyma and therefore contribute to the development of the neuropathology observed in HUS

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition)

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. For example, 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 versus those that measure fl ux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process including the amount and rate of cargo sequestered and degraded). In particular, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation must be differentiated from stimuli that increase autophagic activity, defi ned as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (inmost 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 fi eld 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. It is worth emphasizing here that lysosomal digestion is a stage of autophagy and evaluating its competence is a crucial part of the evaluation of autophagic flux, or complete autophagy. 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. Along these lines, because of the potential for pleiotropic effects due to blocking autophagy through genetic manipulation it is imperative to delete or knock down more than one autophagy-related gene. In addition, some individual Atg proteins, or groups of proteins, are involved in other cellular pathways so not all Atg proteins can be used as a specific marker for an autophagic process. 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

A brachytherapy photon radiation quality index Q(BT) for probe-type dosimetry

Introduction: In photon brachytherapy (BT), experimental dosimetry is needed to verify treatment plans if planning algorithms neglect varying attenuation, absorption or scattering conditions. The detector's response is energy dependent, including the detector material to water dose ratio and the intrinsic mechanisms. The local mean photon energy E(r) must be known or another equivalent energy quality parameter used. We propose the brachytherapy photon radiation quality index Q(BT) ((E) over bar), to characterize the photon radiation quality in view of measurements of distributions of the absorbed dose to water, D-w, around BT sources. Materials and methods: While the external photon beam radiotherapy (EBRT) radiation quality index Q(EBRT) ((E) over bar) = TPR1020((E) over bar) is not applicable to BT, the authors have applied a novel energy dependent parameter, called brachytherapy photon radiation quality index, defined as Q(BT) ((E) over bar) = D-prim(r = 2 cm; theta(0) = 90 degrees)/D-prim(r(0) = 1 cm; theta(0) = 90 degrees), utilizing precise primary absorbed dose data, D-prim, from source reference databases, without additional MC-calculations. Results and discussion: For BT photon sources used clinically, Q(BT) ((E) over bar) enables to determine the effective mean linear attenuation coefficient (mu) over bar (E) and thus the effective energy of the primary photons E-prim(eff)(r(0), theta(0)) at the TG-43 reference position P-ref (r(0) = 1 cm; theta(0) = 90 degrees) being close to the mean total photon energy (E) over bar (tot)(r(0), theta(0)). If one has calibrated detectors, published (E) over bar (tot)(r) and the BT radiation quality correction factor k(Q, Q0)(BT) ((E) over bar, r, theta) for different BT radiation qualities Q and Q(0), the detector's response can be determined and D-w(r, theta) measured in the vicinity of BT photon sources. Conclusions: This novel brachytherapy photon radiation quality index Q(BT) characterizes sufficiently accurate and precise the primary photon` s penetration probability and scattering potential. (C) 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of Associazione Italiana di Fisica Medica

Recommendations for somatic and germline genetic testing of single pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma based on findings from a series of 329 patients

Background Nowadays, 65-80% of pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma (PPGL) cases are explained by germline or somatic mutations in one of 22 genes. Several genetic testing algorithms have been proposed, but they usually exclude sporadic-PPGLs (S-PPGLs) and none include somatic testing. We aimed to genetically characterise S-PPGL cases and propose an evidence-based algorithm for genetic testing, prioritising DNA source. Methods The study included 329 probands fitting three criteria: single PPGL, no syndromic and no PPGL family history. Germline DNA was tested for point mutations in RET and for both point mutation and gross deletions in VHL, the SDH genes, TMEM127, MAX and FH. 99 tumours from patients negative for germline screening were available and tested for RET, VHL, HRAS, EPAS1, MAX and SDHB. Results Germline mutations were found in 46 (14.0%) patients, being more prevalent in paragangliomas (PGLs) (28.7%) than in pheochromocytomas (PCCs) (4.5%) (p= 6.62x10(-10)). Somatic mutations were found in 43% of those tested, being more prevalent in PCCs (48.5%) than in PGLs (32.3%) (p= 0.13). A quarter of S-PPGLs had a somatic mutation, regardless of age at presentation. Head and neck PGLs (HN-PGLs) and thoracic-PGLs (T-PGLs) more commonly had germline mutations (p= 2.0x10(-4) and p= 0.027, respectively). Five of the 29 metastatic cases harboured a somatic mutation, one in HRAS. Conclusions We recommend prioritising testing for germline mutations in patients with HN-PGLs and TPGLs, and for somatic mutations in those with PCC. Biochemical secretion and SDHB-immunohistochemistry should guide genetic screening in abdominal-PGLs. Paediatric and metastatic cases should not be excluded from somatic screening

Integrative multi-omics analysis identifies a prognostic miRNA signature and a targetable miR-21-3p/TSC2/mTOR axis in metastatic pheochromocytoma/paraganglioma

Rationale: Pheochromocytomas and paragangliomas (PPGLs) are rare neuroendocrine tumors that present variable outcomes. To date, no effective therapies or reliable prognostic markers are available for patients who develop metastatic PPGL (mPPGL). Our aim was to discover robust prognostic markers validated through in vitro models, and define specific therapeutic options according to tumor genomic features. Methods: We analyzed three PPGL miRNome datasets (n=443), validated candidate markers and assessed them in serum samples (n=36) to find a metastatic miRNA signature. An integrative study of miRNome, transcriptome and proteome was performed to find miRNA targets, which were further characterized in vitro. Results: A signature of six miRNAs (miR-21-3p, miR-183-5p, miR-182-5p, miR-96-5p, miR-551b-3p, and miR-202-5p) was associated with metastatic risk and time to progression. A higher expression of five of these miRNAs was also detected in PPGL patients' liquid biopsies compared with controls. The combined expression of miR-21-3p/miR-183-5p showed the best power to predict metastasis (AUC=0.804, P=4.67.10(-18)), and was found associated in vitro with pro-metastatic features, such as neuroendocrine-mesenchymal transition phenotype, and increased cell migration rate. A pan-cancer multi-omic integrative study correlated miR-21-3p levels with TSC2 expression, mTOR pathway activation, and a predictive signature for mTOR inhibitor-sensitivity in PPGLs and other cancers. Likewise, we demonstrated in vitro a TSC2 repression and an enhanced rapamycin sensitivity upon miR-21-3p expression. Conclusions: Our findings support the assessment of miR-21-3p/miR-183-5p, in tumors and liquid biopsies, as biomarkers for risk stratification to improve the PPGL patients' management. We propose miR-21-3p to select mPPGL patients who may benefit from mTOR inhibitors