Experience with targeted next generation sequencing for the care of lung cancer: Insights into promises and limitations of genomic oncology in day-to-day practice

Introduction Tumor genotyping using single gene assays (SGAs) is standard practice in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We evaluated how the introduction of next generation sequencing (NGS) into day-to-day clinical practice altered therapeutic decision-making. Methods Clinicopathologic data, tumor genotype, and clinical decisions were retrospectively compiled over 6 months following introduction of NGS assay use at our institution in 82 patient-tumor samples (7 by primary NGS, 22 by sequential SGAs followed by NGS, and 53 by SGAs). Results SGAs identified abnormalities in 34 samples, and all patients with advanced EGFR-mutated or ALK-rearranged tumors received approved tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) or were consented for clinical trials. NGS was more commonly requested for EGFR, ALK, and KRAS-negative tumors (p<0.0001). NGS was successful in 24/29 (82.7%) tumors. Of 17 adenocarcinomas (ACs), 11 (7 from patients with ≤15 pack-years of smoking) had abnormalities in a known driver oncogene. This led to a change in decision-making in 8 patients, trial consideration in 6, and off-label TKI use in 2. Of 7 squamous cell (SC) carcinomas, 1 had a driver aberration (FGFR1); 6 had other genomic events (all with TP53 mutations). In no cases were clinical decisions altered (p=0.0538 when compared to ACs). Conclusions Targeted NGS can identify a significant number of therapeutically-relevant driver events in lung ACs; particularly in never or light smokers. For SC lung cancers, NGS is less likely to alter current practice. Further research into the cost effectiveness and optimal use of NGS and improved provider training in genomic oncology are warranted

Inactivation of the JAK-STAT Pathway

Signaling pathways involving Janus kinases (JAKs) and Signal Transducers and Activators of Transcription (STATs) play an important role in cytokine-induced gene transcription. Aberrant stimulation of this pathway can lead to abnormal development and cellular transformation demonstrating the importance of understanding mechanisms of downregulation. After interferon-γ (IFN-γ) treatment of cells the appearance of tyrosine phosphorylated Stat1 in the, nucleus was maximal within 20-30 minutes, remained for 2-2.5 hours and activated molecules disappeared by 4 hours. In the absence of continued signaling from the IFN-γ receptor (imposed by staurosporine treatment) previously activated Stat1 disappeared within 30-60 minutes, implying continuous generation and removal of tyrosine phosphorylated molecules during extended IFN -γ treatment. The proteasome, induced inhibitory proteins and the SHP-1 protein tyrosine phosphatase were all shown to play a role in the inactivation of the IFN -γ receptor-JAK complex but not in the direct inactivation of Stat1 molecules. By analyzing the flow of phosphorylated Stat1 from cytoplasm to nucleus and utilizing 35S labeling to examine the distribution of total Stat1 and activated Stat1 during a 4 hour IFN-γ time course, we concluded that the Stat1 molecules cycle into the nucleus as tyrosine phosphorylated molecules, are retained in the nucleus until dephosphorylated and then return to the cytoplasm. Our work with Stat5 activation by IL-2 suggests similar mechanisms of downregulation are involved in other JAK-STAT pathways. Therefore, the removal of the activated STAT molecules appears not to be proteolytic but must depend on a nuclear protein tyrosine phosphatase(s)

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