Role of protease activated receptor-2 in lymph node metastasis of uterine cervical cancers

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Protease activated receptor-2 (PAR-2) has been implicated in cellular proliferation, invasion and metastasis in various tumors. Lymph node metastasis is an important patient prognostic factor for uterine cervical cancers. This prompted us to study the role of PAR-2 in lymph node metastasis of uterine cervical cancers.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Thirty patients underwent surgery for uterine cervical cancers. PAR-2 histoscores and mRNA levels were determined by immunohistochemistry and real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction, respectively. Patient prognosis was analyzed with a 48-month survival rate.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>PAR-2 histoscores and mRNA levels significantly (<it>P </it>< 0.05) increased in 12 of 30 metastatic lymph node lesions from the corresponding primary tumor. The 48-month survival rate of the 12 patients with increased PAR-2 levels in metastatic lymph nodes was 42%, while the rate of the other 18 patients with no change in PAR-2 levels was 82%, regardless of histopathological type.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>PAR-2 might work on lymph node metastasis of uterine cervical cancers, and is considered to be a novel prognostic indicator for uterine cervical cancers.</p

Expression of TNF-superfamily members BAFF and APRIL in breast cancer: Immunohistochemical study in 52 invasive ductal breast carcinomas

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Recent studies suggest an association between chronic inflammation, modulating the tissue microenvironment, and tumor biology. Tumor environment consists of tumor, stromal and endothelial cells and infiltrating macrophages, T lymphocytes, and dendritic cells, producing an array of cytokines, chemokines and growth factors, accounting for a complex cell interaction and regulation of differentiation, activation, function and survival of tumor and surrounding cells, responsible for tumor progression and spreading or induction of antitumor immune responses and rejection. Tumor Necrosis Factor (TNF) family members (19 ligands and 29 receptors) represent a pleiotropic family of agents, related to a plethora of cellular events from proliferation and differentiation to apoptosis and tumor reduction. Among these members, BAFF and APRIL (CD257 and CD256 respectively) gained an increased interest, in view of their role in cell protection, differentiation and growth, in a number of lymphocyte, epithelial and mesenchymal structures.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We have assayed by immunohistochemistry 52 human breast cancer biopsies for the expression of BAFF and APRIL and correlated our findings with clinicopathological data and the evolution of the disease.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>BAFF was ubiquitely expressed in breast carcinoma cells, DCIS, normal-appearing glands and ducts and peritumoral adipocytes. In contrast, APRIL immunoreactive expression was higher in non-malignant as compared to malignant breast structures. APRIL but not BAFF immunoreactivity was higher in N+ tumors, and was inversely related with the grade of the tumors. Neither parameter was related to DFS or the OS of patients.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Our data show, for the first time, an autocrine secretion of BAFF and APRIL from breast cancer cells, offering new perspectives for their role in neoplastic and normal breast cell biology and offering new perspectives for possible selective intervention in breast cancer.</p

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