Transsphenoidal surgery for pituitary adenomas: early results from a single center

To evaluate early results of transsphenoidal surgery for pituitary adenomas

Transcription factor AP-1 in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: Alterations in activity and expression during Human Papillomavirus infection

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) is a leading cause of cancer-related deaths in Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) region of India. A substantial proportion of esophageal carcinoma is associated with infection of high-risk HPV type 16 and HPV18, the oncogenic expression of which is controlled by host cell transcription factor Activator Protein-1 (AP-1). We, therefore, have investigated the role of DNA binding and expression pattern of AP-1 in esophageal cancer with or without HPV infection.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Seventy five histopathologically-confirmed esophageal cancer and an equal number of corresponding adjacent normal tissue biopsies from Kashmir were analyzed for HPV infection, DNA binding activity and expression of AP-1 family of proteins by PCR, gel shift assay and immunoblotting respectively.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A high DNA binding activity and elevated expression of AP-1 proteins were observed in esophageal cancer, which differed between HPV positive (19%) and HPV negative (81%) carcinomas. While JunB, c-Fos and Fra-1 were the major contributors to AP-1 binding activity in HPV negative cases, Fra-1 was completely absent in HPV16 positive cancers. Comparison of AP-1 family proteins demonstrated high expression of JunD and c-Fos in HPV positive tumors, but interestingly, Fra-1 expression was extremely low or nil in these tumor tissues.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Differential AP-1 binding activity and expression of its specific proteins between HPV - positive and HPV - negative cases indicate that AP-1 may play an important role during HPV-induced esophageal carcinogenesis.</p

Therapeutic strategies to slow chronic kidney disease progression

Childhood chronic kidney disease commonly progresses toward end-stage renal failure, largely independent of the underlying disorder, once a critical impairment of renal function has occurred. Hypertension and proteinuria are the most important independent risk factors for renal disease progression. Therefore, current therapeutic strategies to prevent progression aim at controlling blood pressure and reducing urinary protein excretion. Renin-angiotensin-system (RAS) antagonists preserve kidney function not only by lowering blood pressure but also by their antiproteinuric, antifibrotic, and anti-inflammatory properties. Intensified blood pressure control, probably aiming for a target blood pressure below the 75th percentile, may exert additional renoprotective effects. Other factors contributing in a multifactorial manner to renal disease progression include dyslipidemia, anemia, and disorders of mineral metabolism. Measures to preserve renal function should therefore also comprise the maintenance of hemoglobin, serum lipid, and calcium-phosphorus ion product levels in the normal range

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