Microsatellite instability analysis in hereditary non-polyposis colon cancer using the Bethesda consensus panel of microsatellite markers in the absence of proband normal tissue

BACKGROUND: Hereditary non-polyposis colon cancer (HNPCC) is an autosomal dominant syndrome predisposing to the early development of various cancers including those of colon, rectum, endometrium, ovarium, small bowel, stomach and urinary tract. HNPCC is caused by germline mutations in the DNA mismatch repair genes, mostly hMSH2 or hMLH1. In this study, we report the analysis for genetic counseling of three first-degree relatives (the mother and two sisters) of a male who died of colorectal adenocarcinoma at the age of 23. The family fulfilled strict Amsterdam-I criteria (AC-I) with the presence of extracolonic tumors in the extended pedigree. We overcame the difficulty of having a proband post-mortem non-tumor tissue sample for MSI testing by studying the alleles carried by his progenitors. METHODS: Tumor MSI testing is described as initial screening in both primary and metastasis tumor tissue blocks, using the reference panel of 5 microsatellite markers standardized by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) for the screening of HNPCC (BAT-25, BAT-26, D2S123, D5S346 and D17S250). Subsequent mutation analysis of the hMLH1 and hMSH2 genes was performed. RESULTS: Three of five microsatellite markers (BAT-25, BAT-26 and D5S346) presented different alleles in the proband's tumor as compared to those inherited from his parents. The tumor was classified as high frequency microsatellite instability (MSI-H). We identified in the HNPCC family a novel germline missense (c.1864C>A) mutation in exon 12 of hMSH2 gene, leading to a proline 622 to threonine (p.Pro622Thr) amino acid substitution. CONCLUSION: This approach allowed us to establish the tumor MSI status using the NCI recommended panel in the absence of proband's non-tumor tissue and before sequencing the obligate carrier. According to the Human Gene Mutation Database (HGMD) and the International Society for Gastrointestinal Hereditary Tumors (InSiGHT) Database this is the first report of this mutation

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