TRAIL-receptor preferences in pancreatic cancer cells revisited: Both TRAIL-R1 and TRAIL-R2 have a licence to kill

Background TRAIL is a potent and specific inducer of apoptosis in tumour cells and therefore is a possible new cancer treatment. It triggers apoptosis by binding to its cognate, death-inducing receptors, TRAIL-R1 and TRAIL-R2. In order to increase its activity, receptor-specific ligands and agonistic antibodies have been developed and some cancer types, including pancreatic cancer, have been reported to respond preferentially to TRAIL-R1 triggering. The aim of the present study was to examine an array of TRAIL-receptor specific variants on a number of pancreatic cancer cells and test the generality of the concept of TRAIL-R1 preference in these cells. Methods TRAIL-R1 and TRAIL-R2 specific sTRAIL variants were designed and tested on a number of pancreatic cancer cells for their TRAIL-receptor preference. These sTRAIL variants were produced in HEK293 cells and were secreted into the medium. After having measured and normalised the different sTRAIL variant concentrations, they were applied to pancreatic and control cancer cells. Twenty-four hours later apoptosis was measured by DNA hypodiploidy assays. Furthermore, the specificities of the sTRAIL variants were validated in HCT116 cells that were silenced either for TRAIL-R1 or TRAIL-R2. Results Our results show that some pancreatic cancer cells use TRAIL-R1 to induce cell death, whereas other pancreatic carcinoma cells such as AsPC-1 and BxPC-3 cells trigger apoptosis via TRAIL-R2. This observation extended to cells that were naturally TRAIL-resistant and had to be sensitised by silencing of XIAP (Panc1 cells). The measurement of TRAIL-receptor expression by FACS revealed no correlation between receptor preferences and the relative levels of TRAIL-R1 and TRAIL-R2 on the cellular surface. Conclusions These results demonstrate that TRAIL-receptor preferences in pancreatic cancer cells are variable and that predictions according to cancer type are difficult and that determining factors to inform the optimal TRAIL-based treatments still have to be identified

The Hubble Constant

I review the current state of determinations of the Hubble constant, which gives the length scale of the Universe by relating the expansion velocity of objects to their distance. There are two broad categories of measurements. The first uses individual astrophysical objects which have some property that allows their intrinsic luminosity or size to be determined, or allows the determination of their distance by geometric means. The second category comprises the use of all-sky cosmic microwave background, or correlations between large samples of galaxies, to determine information about the geometry of the Universe and hence the Hubble constant, typically in a combination with other cosmological parameters. Many, but not all, object-based measurements give $H_0$ values of around 72-74km/s/Mpc , with typical errors of 2-3km/s/Mpc. This is in mild discrepancy with CMB-based measurements, in particular those from the Planck satellite, which give values of 67-68km/s/Mpc and typical errors of 1-2km/s/Mpc. The size of the remaining systematics indicate that accuracy rather than precision is the remaining problem in a good determination of the Hubble constant. Whether a discrepancy exists, and whether new physics is needed to resolve it, depends on details of the systematics of the object-based methods, and also on the assumptions about other cosmological parameters and which datasets are combined in the case of the all-sky methods.Comment: Extensively revised and updated since the 2007 version: accepted by Living Reviews in Relativity as a major (2014) update of LRR 10, 4, 200

The spectrum of EWSR1-rearranged neoplasms at a tertiary sarcoma centre; assessing 772 tumour specimens and the value of current ancillary molecular diagnostic modalities

Background: EWSR1 rearrangements were first identified in Ewing sarcoma, but the spectrum of EWSR1-rearranged neoplasms now includes many soft tissue tumour subtypes including desmoplastic small round cell tumour (DSRCT), myxoid liposarcoma (MLPS), extraskeletal myxoid chondrosarcoma (EMC), angiomatoid fibrous histiocytoma (AFH), clear cell sarcoma (CCS) and myoepithelial neoplasms. We analysed the spectrum of EWSR1-rearranged soft tissue neoplasms at our tertiary sarcoma centre, by assessing ancillary molecular diagnostic modalities identifying EWSR1-rearranged tumours and reviewing the results in light of our current knowledge of these and other Ewing sarcoma-like neoplasms. Methods: We retrospectively analysed all specimens tested for EWSR1 rearrangements by fluorescence in situ hybridisation (FISH) and/or reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR) over a 7-year period. Results: There was a total of 772 specimens. FISH was performed more often than RT-PCR (n = 753, 97.5% vs n = 445, 57.6%). In total, 210 (27.9%) specimens were FISH-positive for EWSR1 rearrangement compared to 111 (14.4%) that showed EWSR1 fusion transcripts with RT-PCR. Failure rates for FISH and RT-PCR were 2.5% and 18.0%. Of 109 round cell tumours with pathology consistent with Ewing sarcoma, 15 (13.8 %) cases were FISH-positive without an identifiable EWSR1 fusion transcript, 4 (3.7%) were FISH-negative but RT-PCR positive and 4 (3.7%) were negative for both. FISH positivity for DSRCT, MLPS, EMC, AFH and CCS was 86.3%, 4.3%, 58.5%, 60.0% and 87.9%, respectively. A positive FISH result led to diagnostic change in 40 (19.0%) EWSR1rearranged cases. 13 FISH-positive cases remained unclassifiable. Conclusions: FISH is more sensitive for identifying EWSR1 rearrangements than RT-PCR. However, there can be significant morphologic and immunohistochemical overlap between groups of EWSR1-rearranged neoplasms, with important prognostic and therapeutic implications. FISH and RT-PCR should be used as complementary modalities in diagnosing EWSR1-rearranged neoplasms, but as tumour groups harbouring EWSR1 rearrangements are increasingly characterised and because given translocations involving EWSR1 and its partner genes are not always specific for tumour types, it is critical that these are evaluated by specialist soft tissue surgical pathologists noting the morphologic and immunohistochemical context. As RT-PCR using commercial primers is limited to only the most prevalent EWSR1 fusion transcripts, the incorporation of high-throughput sequencing technologies into the standard diagnostic repertoire to assess for multiple molecular abnormalities of soft tissue tumours in parallel (including detection of newly characterised Ewing sarcoma-like tumours) might be the most effective and efficient means of ancillary diagnosis in future