Promoter methylation of the hMLH1 gene and protein expression of human mutL homolog 1 and human mutS homolog 2 in resected esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

ObjectiveAberrant expression of mismatch repair genes, such as human mutL homolog 1 (hMLH1) and human mutS homolog 2 (hMSH2), are common in some human cancers, and promoter methylation is believed to inactivate expression of hMLH1. We investigated whether promoter methylation is involved in loss of hMLH1 protein and whether aberrant expression of hMLH1 and hMSH2 protein is related to prognosis after resection for esophageal squamous cell cancer.MethodsWe analyzed promoter methylation of hMLH1 using methylation-specific polymerase chain reaction and hMLH1 and hMSH2 protein by using immunohistochemistry in 60 resected tumor specimens. The Pearson χ2 test was used to compare expression of hMLH1 and hMSH2 protein among patients with different clinicopathologic parameters. Concordance analysis was performed between hMLH1 methylation and its protein expression.ResultsLoss of hMLH1 and hMSH2 protein was found in 43 (72%) and 39 (65%, P = .06) of 60 resected specimens, respectively. hMLH1 protein correlated well with tumor staging (P < .0001), depth of tumor invasion (P = .008), and nodal involvement (P < .0001) but not with distant metastasis, whereas hMSH2 did not show correlation with any of these parameters. A concordance rate of 83.3% was present between expression of hMLH1 protein and its promoter methylation (P < .001).ConclusionsAberrant expression of hMLH1 and hMSH2 protein is frequently associated with the presence of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, and expression of hMLH1 protein is a better prognostic predictor than is expression of hMSH2 protein. Promoter methylation is one of the mechanisms responsible for loss of hMLH1 protein in esophageal squamous cell cancer

3D bioactive composite scaffolds for bone tissue engineering

Bone is the second most commonly transplanted tissue worldwide, with over four million operations using bone grafts or bone substitute materials annually to treat bone defects. However, significant limitations affect current treatment options and clinical demand for bone grafts continues to rise due to conditions such as trauma, cancer, infection and arthritis. Developing bioactive three-dimensional (3D) scaffolds to support bone regeneration has therefore become a key area of focus within bone tissue engineering (BTE). A variety of materials and manufacturing methods including 3D printing have been used to create novel alternatives to traditional bone grafts. However, individual groups of materials including polymers, ceramics and hydrogels have been unable to fully replicate the properties of bone when used alone. Favourable material properties can be combined and bioactivity improved when groups of materials are used together in composite 3D scaffolds. This review will therefore consider the ideal properties of bioactive composite 3D scaffolds and examine recent use of polymers, hydrogels, metals, ceramics and bio-glasses in BTE. Scaffold fabrication methodology, mechanical performance, biocompatibility, bioactivity, and potential clinical translations will be discussed

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

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

Development and Application of the Stereo Vision Tracking System with Virtual Reality

A virtual reality (VR) driver tracking verification system is created, of which the application to stereo image tracking and positioning accuracy is researched in depth. In the research, the feature that the stereo vision system has image depth is utilized to improve the error rate of image tracking and image measurement. In a VR scenario, the function collecting behavioral data of driver was tested. By means of VR, racing operation is simulated and environmental (special weathers such as raining and snowing) and artificial (such as sudden crossing road by pedestrians, appearing of vehicles from dead angles, roadblock) variables are added as the base for system implementation. In addition, the implementation is performed with human factors engineered according to sudden conditions that may happen easily in driving. From experimental results, it proves that the stereo vision system created by the research has an image depth recognition error rate within 0.011%. The image tracking error rate may be smaller than 2.5%. In the research, the image recognition function of stereo vision is utilized to accomplish the data collection of driver tracking detection. In addition, the environmental conditions of different simulated real scenarios may also be created through VR