OBI-3424, a novel AKR1c3-activated prodrug, exhibits potent efficacy against preclinical models of T-ALL

PURPOSE:OBI-3424 is a highly selective prodrug that is converted by aldo-keto reductase family 1 member C3 (AKR1C3) to a potent DNA-alkylating agent. OBI-3424 has entered clinical testing for hepatocellular carcinoma and castrate-resistant prostate cancer, and it represents a potentially novel treatment for acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN:We assessed AKR1C3 expression by RNA-Seq and immunoblotting, and evaluated the in vitro cytotoxicity of OBI-3424. We investigated the pharmacokinetics of OBI-3424 in mice and nonhuman primates, and assessed the in vivo efficacy of OBI-3424 against a large panel of patient-derived xenografts (PDX). RESULTS:AKR1C3 mRNA expression was significantly higher in primary T-lineage ALL (T-ALL; n = 264) than B-lineage ALL (B-ALL; n = 1,740; P < 0.0001), and OBI-3424 exerted potent cytotoxicity against T-ALL cell lines and PDXs. In vivo, OBI-3424 significantly prolonged the event-free survival (EFS) of nine of nine ALL PDXs by 17.1-77.8 days (treated/control values 2.5-14.0), and disease regression was observed in eight of nine PDXs. A significant reduction (P < 0.0001) in bone marrow infiltration at day 28 was observed in four of six evaluable T-ALL PDXs. The importance of AKR1C3 in the in vivo response to OBI-3424 was verified using a B-ALL PDX that had been lentivirally transduced to stably overexpress AKR1C3. OBI-3424 combined with nelarabine resulted in prolongation of mouse EFS compared with each single agent alone in two T-ALL PDXs. CONCLUSIONS:OBI-3424 exerted profound in vivo efficacy against T-ALL PDXs derived predominantly from aggressive and fatal disease, and therefore may represent a novel treatment for aggressive and chemoresistant T-ALL in an AKR1C3 biomarker-driven clinical trial.Kathryn Evans, JianXin Duan, Tara Pritchard, Connor D. Jones, Lisa McDermott ... Charles G. Mullighan ... et al

Australian Mothers\u27 notions of risk and uncertainty in relation to their pre-teen children

In this article we examine the ways discourses of risk manifested and played out within and across two groups of Australian mothers living in two large urban centres in Australia: the first comprised of mothers who had a pre-teen child diagnosed with an eating disorder (n = 13); the second of mothers who had a pre-teen child without the symptoms or diagnosis of an eating disorder (n = 13). In 2011 and 2012, we conducted in-depth interviews with the mothers in their homes on their ideas about health and their relationships with their children. An analysis of the data collected from these interviews indicated that having a pre-teen child diagnosed with an eating disorder had a decisive impact on how the mothers constituted and responded to risk. For mothers, who had a pre-teen child with an eating disorder, risk was intensified by bio-medical discourses. The particular intensifications of risk limited the ways in which mothers could act and often threatened to undermine their abilities as competent carers. By contrast, the mothers who did not have a pre-teen child with an eating disorder spoke about risk less directly, and with less sense of immediacy. Where these mothers acknowledged risk discourses particularly in regard to health, they were in a stronger position to negotiate them. Our analysis indicates that the ways in which mothers responded to risk is contingent on circumstances and contexts. Mothers&rsquo; responses to risk were related to the calculability of the risk and their perceived capacity to manage it

Endonuclease G is a novel determinant of cardiac hypertrophy and mitochondrial function

10.1038/nature10490Nature4787367114-11

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