Clinical and Genetic Spectrum of Stargardt Disease in Argentinean Patients

Purpose: To describe the clinical and molecular spectrum of Stargardt disease (STGD) in a cohort of Argentinean patients. Methods: This retrospective study included 132 subjects comprising 95 probands clinically diagnosed with STGD and relatives from 16 of them. Targeted next-generation sequencing of the coding and splicing regions of ABCA4 and other phenocopying genes (ELOVL4, PROM1, and CNGB3) was performed in 97 STGD patients. Results: We found two or more disease-causing variants in the ABCA4 gene in 69/95 (73%) probands, a single ABCA4 variant in 9/95 (9.5%) probands, and no ABCA4 variants in 17/95 (18%) probands. The final analysis identified 173 variants in ABCA4. Seventy-nine ABCA4 variants were unique, of which nine were novel. No significant findings were seen in the other evaluated genes. Conclusion: This study describes the phenotypic and genetic features of STGD1 in an Argentinean cohort. The mutations p.(Gly1961Glu) and p.(Arg1129Leu) were the most frequent, representing almost 20% of the mutated alleles. We also expanded the ABCA4 mutational spectrum with nine novel disease-causing variants, of which eight might be associated with South American natives.Fil: Mena, Marcela Daniela C. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Instituto de Investigaciones Bioquímicas de Buenos Aires. Fundación Instituto Leloir. Instituto de Investigaciones Bioquímicas de Buenos Aires; ArgentinaFil: Moresco, Angélica A.. Gobierno de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires. Hospital de Pediatría "Juan P. Garrahan"; ArgentinaFil: Vidal, Sofía H.. Gobierno de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires. Hospital de Pediatría "Juan P. Garrahan"; ArgentinaFil: Aguilar Cortes, Diana Carolina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Instituto de Investigaciones Bioquímicas de Buenos Aires. Fundación Instituto Leloir. Instituto de Investigaciones Bioquímicas de Buenos Aires; ArgentinaFil: Obregon, María G.. Gobierno de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires. Hospital de Pediatría "Juan P. Garrahan"; ArgentinaFil: Fandiño, Adriana Cristina. Gobierno de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires. Hospital de Pediatría "Juan P. Garrahan"; ArgentinaFil: Sendoya, Juan Martín. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Instituto de Investigaciones Bioquímicas de Buenos Aires. Fundación Instituto Leloir. Instituto de Investigaciones Bioquímicas de Buenos Aires; ArgentinaFil: Llera, Andrea Sabina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Instituto de Investigaciones Bioquímicas de Buenos Aires. Fundación Instituto Leloir. Instituto de Investigaciones Bioquímicas de Buenos Aires; ArgentinaFil: Podhajcer, Osvaldo Luis. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Instituto de Investigaciones Bioquímicas de Buenos Aires. Fundación Instituto Leloir. Instituto de Investigaciones Bioquímicas de Buenos Aires; Argentin

Recurrent somatic chromosomal abnormalities in relapsed extraocular retinoblastoma

Most reports about copy number alterations (CNA) in retinoblastoma relate to patients with intraocular disease and features of children with extraocular relapse remain unknown, so we aimed to describe the CNA in this population. We evaluated 23 patients and 27 specimens from 4 centers. Seventeen cases had extraocular relapse after initial enucleation and six cases after an initial preservation attempt. We performed an analysis of CNA and BCOR gene alteration by SNP array (Single Nucleotide Polymorfism array), whole-exome sequencing, IMPACT panel and CGH array (Array-based comparative genomic hybridization). All cases presented CNA at a higher prevalence than those reported in previously published studies for intraocular cases. CNA previously reported for intraocular retinoblastoma were found at a high frequency in our cohort: gains in 1q (69.5%), 2p (60.9%) and 6p (86.9%), and 16q loss (78.2%). Other, previously less-recognized, CNA were found including loss of 11q (34.8%), gain of 17q (56.5%), loss of 19q (30.4%) and BCOR alterations were present in 72.7% of our cases. A high number of CNA including 11q deletions, 17q gains, 19q loss, and BCOR alterations, are more common in extraocular retinoblastoma. Identification of these features may be correlated with a more aggressive tumor warranting consideration for patient management.Fil: Aschero, María del Rosario. Gobierno de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires. Hospital de Pediatría "Juan P. Garrahan"; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaFil: Francis, Jasmine H.. Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center; Estados UnidosFil: Ganiewich, Daiana. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Instituto de Investigaciones Bioquímicas de Buenos Aires. Fundación Instituto Leloir. Instituto de Investigaciones Bioquímicas de Buenos Aires; ArgentinaFil: Gomez Gonzalez, Soledad. Hospital Sant Joan de Deu Barcelona; EspañaFil: Sampor, Claudia. Gobierno de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires. Hospital de Pediatría "Juan P. Garrahan"; ArgentinaFil: Zugbi, Santiago. Gobierno de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires. Hospital de Pediatría "Juan P. Garrahan"; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaFil: Ottaviani, Daniela. Universite de Paris; Francia. Institute Curie; Francia. Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique; FranciaFil: Lemelle, Lauriane. Universite de Paris; Francia. Institute Curie; Francia. Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique; FranciaFil: Mena, Marcela Daniela C. Gobierno de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires. Hospital de Pediatría "Juan P. Garrahan"; ArgentinaFil: Winter, Ursula Andrea. Gobierno de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires. Hospital de Pediatría "Juan P. Garrahan"; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaFil: Correa Llano, Genoveva. Hospital Sant Joan de Deu Barcelona; EspañaFil: Lamas, Gabriela. Gobierno de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires. Hospital de Pediatría "Juan P. Garrahan"; ArgentinaFil: Lubieniecki, Fabiana. Gobierno de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires. Hospital de Pediatría "Juan P. Garrahan"; ArgentinaFil: Szijan, Irene. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Farmacia y Bioquímica. Departamento de Microbiología, Inmunología y Biotecnología. Cátedra de Genética y Biología Molecular; ArgentinaFil: Mora, Jaume. Hospital Sant Joan de Deu Barcelona; EspañaFil: Podhajcer, Osvaldo Luis. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Instituto de Investigaciones Bioquímicas de Buenos Aires. Fundación Instituto Leloir. Instituto de Investigaciones Bioquímicas de Buenos Aires; ArgentinaFil: Doz, François. Universite de Paris; Francia. Institute Curie; Francia. Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique; FranciaFil: Radvanyi, François. Universite de Paris; Francia. Institute Curie; Francia. Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique; FranciaFil: Abramson, David H.. Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center; Estados UnidosFil: Llera, Andrea Sabina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Instituto de Investigaciones Bioquímicas de Buenos Aires. Fundación Instituto Leloir. Instituto de Investigaciones Bioquímicas de Buenos Aires; ArgentinaFil: Schaiquevich, Paula Susana. Gobierno de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires. Hospital de Pediatría "Juan P. Garrahan"; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaFil: Lavarino, Cinzia. Hospital Sant Joan de Deu Barcelona; EspañaFil: Chantada, Guillermo Luis. Gobierno de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires. Hospital de Pediatría "Juan P. Garrahan"; Argentina. Hospital Sant Joan de Deu Barcelona; España. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentin

The database of the PREDICTS (Projecting Responses of Ecological Diversity In Changing Terrestrial Systems) project

The PREDICTS project—Projecting Responses of Ecological Diversity In Changing Terrestrial Systems (www.predicts.org.uk)—has collated from published studies a large, reasonably representative database of comparable samples of biodiversity from multiple sites that differ in the nature or intensity of human impacts relating to land use. We have used this evidence base to develop global and regional statistical models of how local biodiversity responds to these measures. We describe and make freely available this 2016 release of the database, containing more than 3.2 million records sampled at over 26,000 locations and representing over 47,000 species. We outline how the database can help in answering a range of questions in ecology and conservation biology. To our knowledge, this is the largest and most geographically and taxonomically representative database of spatial comparisons of biodiversity that has been collated to date; it will be useful to researchers and international efforts wishing to model and understand the global status of biodiversity

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

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

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

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