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

Pioneers of Breast Implant-Associated Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma: History from Case Report to Global Recognition

The first case of breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (breast implant ALCL) was described by John Keech and the late Brevator Creech in 1997. In the following 2 decades, much research has led to acceptance of breast implant ALCL as a specific clinicopathologic entity, a process that we bring up to life through the memories of 6 persons who were involved in this progress, although we acknowledge that many others also have contributed to the current state of the art of this disease. Dr. Keech recalls the events that led him and Creech to first report the disease. Ahmet Dogan and colleagues at the Mayo Clinic described a series of 4 patients with breast implant ALCL, and led to increased awareness of breast implant ALCL in the pathology community. Daphne de Jong and colleagues in the Netherlands were the first to provide epidemiologic evidence to support the association between breast implants and ALCL. Garry Brody was one of the first investigators to collect a large number of patients with the disease, present the spectrum of clinical findings, and alert the community of plastic surgeons. Roberto Miranda and L. Jeffrey Medeiros and colleagues studied the pathologic findings of a large number of cases of breast implant ALCL, and published the findings in 2 impactful studies in the medical oncology literature. The recognition and acceptance of this disease by surgeons, epidemiologists, and medical oncologists, working together, has led to subsequent studies on the pathogenesis and optimal therapy of this disease.Revisión por pare

Biomarkers provide clues to early events in the pathogenesis of breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma

Almost 200 women worldwide have been diagnosed with breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL). The unique location and specific lymphoma type strongly suggest an etio-pathologic link between breast implants and BIA-ALCL. It is postulated that chronic inflammation via bacterial infection may be an etiological factor. BIA-ALCL resembles primary cutaneous ALCL (pcALCL) in morphology, activated T-cell phenotype, and indolent clinical course. Gene expression array analysis, flow cytometry, and immunohistochemistry were used to study pcALCL and BIA-ALCL cell lines. Clinical samples were also studied to characterize transcription factor and cytokine profiles of tumor cells and surrounding lymphocytes. BIA-ALCL and pcALCL were found to have common expression of transcription factors SOCS3, JunB, SATB1, and a cytokine profile suggestive of a Th1 phenotype. Similar patterns were observed in a CD30+ cutaneous lymphoproliferative disorder (LPD). The patterns of cytokine and transcription factor expression suggest that BIA-ALCL is likely to arise from chronic bacterial antigen stimulation of T-cells. Further analysis of cytokine and transcription factor profiles may allow early detection and treatment of BIA-ALCL leading to better prognosis and survival.9 page(s