Immunohistochemical evaluation of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 and estrogen and progesterone receptors in breast carcinoma in Jordan

INTRODUCTION: Although breast carcinoma (BC) is the most common malignancy affecting Jordanian females and the affected population in Jordan is younger than that in the West, no information is available on its biological characteristics. Our aims in this study are to evaluate the expression of estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR) and Her-2/neu overexpression in BC in Jordan, and to compare the expression of these with other prognostic parameters for BC such as histological type, histological grade, tumor size, patients' age, and number of lymph node metastases. METHOD: This is a retrospective study conducted in the Department of Pathology at Jordan University of Science and Technology. A confirmed 91 cases of BC diagnosed in the period 1995 to 1998 were reviewed and graded. We used immunohistochemistry to evaluate the expression of ER, PR, and Her-2. Immunohistochemical findings were correlated with age, tumor size, grade and axillary lymph node status. RESULTS: Her-2 was overexpressed in 24% of the cases. The mean age of Her-2 positive cases was 42 years as opposed to 53 years among Her-2 negative cases (p = 0.0001). Her-2 expression was inversely related to ER and PR expression. Her-2 positive tumors tended to be larger than Her-2 negative tumors with 35% overexpression among T3 tumors as opposed to 22% among T2 tumors (p = 0.13). Her-2 positive cases tended to have higher rates of axillary metastases, but this did not reach statistical significance. ER and PR positive cases were seen in older patients with smaller tumor sizes. CONCLUSION: Her-2 overexpression was seen in 24% of BC affecting Jordanian females. Her-2 overexpression was associated with young age at presentation, larger tumor size, and was inversely related to ER and PR expression. One-fifth of the carcinomas were Her-2 positive and ER negative. This group appears to represent an aggressive form of BC presenting at a young age with large primary tumors and a high rate of four or more axillary lymph node metastases

Measurement of the Bottom-Strange Meson Mixing Phase in the Full CDF Data Set

We report a measurement of the bottom-strange meson mixing phase \beta_s using the time evolution of B0_s -> J/\psi (->\mu+\mu-) \phi (-> K+ K-) decays in which the quark-flavor content of the bottom-strange meson is identified at production. This measurement uses the full data set of proton-antiproton collisions at sqrt(s)= 1.96 TeV collected by the Collider Detector experiment at the Fermilab Tevatron, corresponding to 9.6 fb-1 of integrated luminosity. We report confidence regions in the two-dimensional space of \beta_s and the B0_s decay-width difference \Delta\Gamma_s, and measure \beta_s in [-\pi/2, -1.51] U [-0.06, 0.30] U [1.26, \pi/2] at the 68% confidence level, in agreement with the standard model expectation. Assuming the standard model value of \beta_s, we also determine \Delta\Gamma_s = 0.068 +- 0.026 (stat) +- 0.009 (syst) ps-1 and the mean B0_s lifetime, \tau_s = 1.528 +- 0.019 (stat) +- 0.009 (syst) ps, which are consistent and competitive with determinations by other experiments.Comment: 8 pages, 2 figures, Phys. Rev. Lett 109, 171802 (2012

Overexpression of c-erbB2 is a negative prognostic factor in anaplastic astrocytomas

The epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) family, consisting of four tyrosine kinase receptors, c-erbB1-4, seems to be influential in gliomagenesis. The aim of this study was to investigate EGFR gene amplification and expression of c-erbB1-4 receptor proteins in human anaplastic astrocytomas. Formalin-fixed and paraffin-embedded sections from 31 cases were investigated by standard immunohistochemical procedures for expression of c-erbB1-4 receptor proteins using commercial antibodies. EGFR gene amplification was studied by fluorescence in situ hybridization using paraffin-embedded tissues. Two monoclonal antibodies, NCL-EGFR-384 and NCL-EGFR, were used for EGFR detection and they displayed positive immunoreactivity in 97% and 71%, respectively. For c-erbB2 detection three monoclonal antibodies, CB11, 3B5, and 5A2, were applied and they displayed positive immunoreactivity in 45%, 100%, and 52%, respectively. Positive immunostaining for c-erbB3 and c-erbB4 was encountered in 97% and 74%, respectively. The EGFR gene was amplified in 9 out of 31 tumors (29%). After adjusting for age, Karnofsky performance status, and extent of surgical resection, Cox multiple regression analysis with overall survival as the dependent variable revealed that c-erbB2 overexpression detected by the monoclonal antibody clone CB11 was a statistically significant poor prognostic factor (P = 0.004). This study shows the convenience and feasibility of immunohistochemistry when determining the expression of receptor proteins in tissue sections of human astrocytomas. The synchronous overexpression of c-erbB1-4 proteins in anaplastic astrocytomas supports their role in the pathogenesis of these tumors. Further, c-erbB2 overexpression seems to predict aggressive behaviour

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