Inverse association between atopy and melanoma: A case-control study

Heightened cutaneous immune surveillance in atopic patients may inhibit development of melanoma. The aim of this study was to analyse the association between atopy and melanoma (development and outcome). A total of 188 cases of melanoma and 596 healthy controls were interviewed by telephone with a standardized questionnaire on atopic, demographic and melanoma characteristics. Cases were matched with controls on important confounders (age, sex, sunburn sensitivity, hair colour, number of moles, sunburn as juvenile, ever sunbed use, familial melanoma). Melanoma outcome data (disease relapse and death) within cases were retrieved. Analysis showed a general inverse association between atopy and melanoma development, but this was statistically significant only for a history of personal atopy (odds ratio 0.53, 95% confidence interval: 0.30-0.96, p-value = 0.04). Among melanoma patients, atopy did not affect survival or progression. In conclusion, this study suggests an inverse association between a history of atopy and melanoma development, but not with disease progression

A digital mRNA expression signature to classify challenging Spitzoid melanocytic neoplasms

Spitzoid neoplasms are a challenging group of cutaneous melanocytic proliferations. They are characterized by epithelioid and/or spindle-shaped melanocytes and classified as benign Spitz nevi (SN), atypical Spitz tumors (AST), or malignant Spitz tumors (MST). The intermediate AST category represents a diagnostically challenging group since on purely histopathological grounds, their benign or malignant character remains unpredictable. This results in uncertainties in patient treatment and prognosis. The molecular properties of Spitzoid lesions, especially their transcriptomic landscape, remain poorly understood, and genomic alterations in melanoma-associated oncogenes are typically absent. The aim of this study was to characterize their transcriptome with digital mRNA expression profiling. Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded samples (including 27 SN, 10 AST, and 14 MST) were analyzed using the NanoString nCounter PanCancer Pathways Panel. The number of significantly differentially expressed genes in SN vs. MST, SN vs. AST, and AST vs. MST was 68, 167, and 18, respectively. Gene set enrichment analysis revealed upregulation of pathways related to epithelial-mesenchymal transition and immunomodulatory-, angiogenesis-, hormonal-, and myogenesis-associated processes in AST and MST. A molecular signature of SN vs. MST was discovered based on the top-ranked most informative genes: NRAS, NF1, BMP2, EIF2B4, IFNA17, and FZD9. The AST samples showed intermediate levels of the identified signature. This implies that the gene signature can potentially be used to distinguish high-grade from low-grade AST with a larger study cohort in the future. This combined histopathological and transcriptomic methodology is promising for prospective diagnostics of Spitzoid neoplasms and patient management in dermatological oncology.status: publishe

A digital mRNA expression signature to classify challenging Spitzoid melanocytic neoplasms

Spitzoid neoplasms are a challenging group of cutaneous melanocytic proliferations. They are characterized by epithelioid and/or spindle-shaped melanocytes and classified as benign Spitz nevi (SN), atypical Spitz tumors (AST), or malignant Spitz tumors (MST). The intermediate AST category represents a diagnostically challenging group since on purely histopathological grounds, their benign or malignant character remains unpredictable. This results in uncertainties in patient treatment and prognosis. The molecular properties of Spitzoid lesions, especially their transcriptomic landscape, remain poorly understood, and genomic alterations in melanoma-associated oncogenes are typically absent. The aim of this study was to characterize their transcriptome with digital mRNA expression profiling. Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded samples (including 27 SN, 10 AST, and 14 MST) were analyzed using the NanoString nCounter PanCancer Pathways Panel. The number of significantly differentially expressed genes in SN vs. MST, SN vs. AST, and AST vs. MST was 68, 167, and 18, respectively. Gene set enrichment analysis revealed upregulation of pathways related to epithelial-mesenchymal transition and immunomodulatory-, angiogenesis-, hormonal-, and myogenesis-associated processes in AST and MST. A molecular signature of SN vs. MST was discovered based on the top-ranked most informative genes: NRAS, NF1, BMP2, EIF2B4, IFNA17, and FZD9. The AST samples showed intermediate levels of the identified signature. This implies that the gene signature can potentially be used to distinguish high-grade from low-grade AST with a larger study cohort in the future. This combined histopathological and transcriptomic methodology is promising for prospective diagnostics of Spitzoid neoplasms and patient management in dermatological oncology

A digital mRNA expression signature to classify challenging Spitzoid melanocytic neoplasms

Spitzoid neoplasms are a challenging group of cutaneous melanocytic proliferations. They are characterized by epithelioid and/or spindle-shaped melanocytes and classified as benign Spitz nevi (SN), atypical Spitz tumors (AST), or malignant Spitz tumors (MST). The intermediate AST category represents a diagnostically challenging group since on purely histopathological grounds, their benign or malignant character remains unpredictable. This results in uncertainties in patient treatment and prognosis. The molecular properties of Spitzoid lesions, especially their transcriptomic landscape, remain poorly understood, and genomic alterations in melanoma-associated oncogenes are typically absent. The aim of this study was to characterize their transcriptome with digital mRNA expression profiling. Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded samples (including 27 SN, 10 AST, and 14 MST) were analyzed using the NanoString nCounter PanCancer Pathways Panel. The number of significantly differentially expressed genes in SN vs. MST, SN vs. AST, and AST vs. MST was 68, 167, and 18, respectively. Gene set enrichment analysis revealed upregulation of pathways related to epithelial-mesenchymal transition and immunomodulatory-, angiogenesis-, hormonal-, and myogenesis-associated processes in AST and MST. A molecular signature of SN vs. MST was discovered based on the top-ranked most informative genes: NRAS, NF1, BMP2, EIF2B4, IFNA17, and FZD9. The AST samples showed intermediate levels of the identified signature. This implies that the gene signature can potentially be used to distinguish high-grade from low-grade AST with a larger study cohort in the future. This combined histopathological and transcriptomic methodology is promising for prospective diagnostics of Spitzoid neoplasms and patient management in dermatological oncology

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

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

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