Uterine smooth muscle tumors of uncertain malignant potential (STUMP): pathology, follow-up and recurrence

The term smooth uterine muscle of uncertain malignant potential (STUMPs) indicates a group of uterine smooth muscle tumors (SMTs) that cannot be diagnosed unequivocally as benign or malignant. Diagnosis, surgical management, and follow-up of this neoplasm remain controversial, especially in pre-menopausal women with fertility desire, due to the non aggressive behaviour and prolonged survival rate when compared to leiomyosarcomas. However, recurrence is estimated between 8.7% and 11% and may include delayed-recurrences. We reported five cases of uterine masses treated by surgical procedure diagnosed as STUMP on final pathology. Four patients underwent a total abdominal hysterectomy with or without salpingo-oophorectomy. One patient underwent excision of uterine mass and subsequent total abdominal hysterectomy plus bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy after the diagnosis of STUMP. All patients in our study remained recurrence-free to date (with a follow up period ranging from 6 to 81 months). Based on our experience and in consideration of the lack of consensus regarding the malignant potential, diagnostic criteria, gold-standard treatment and follow-up, we believe that close multidisciplinary management is mandatory in the event of STUMP. We suggest that gynaecologist, dedicated pathologist (with high level of expertize in gynaecological pathology) and oncologist should work as a team in the counselling and management of this neoplasm from detection till completion of follow up. Furthermore, we recommend immunohistochemistry to investigate the overexpression of p16 and p53 in order to identify the cohort of patients at increased risk of recurrence who may benefit from more aggressive surgical-oncological strategies

nNOS/GSNOR interaction contributes to skeletal muscle differentiation and homeostasis

Neuronal nitric oxide synthase (nNOS) plays a crucial role in the maintenance of correct skeletal muscle function due, at least in part, to S-nitrosylation of specific protein targets. Similarly, we recently provided evidence for a muscular phenotype in mice lacking the denitrosylase S-nitrosoglutathione reductase (GSNOR). Here, we demonstrate that nNOS and GSNOR are concomitantly expressed during differentiation of C2C12. They colocalizes at the sarcolemma and co-immunoprecipitate in cells and in myofibers. We also provide evidence that GSNOR expression decreases in mouse models of muscular dystrophies and of muscle atrophy and wasting, i.e., aging and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, suggesting a more general regulatory role of GSNOR in skeletal muscle homeostasis

Semiquantitative chest CT severity score predicts failure of noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation in patients hospitalized for COVID-19 pneumonia

Noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation (NPPV) emerged as an efficient tool for treatment of COVID-19 pneumonia. The factors influencing NPPV failure still are elusive. The aim of the study was to investigate the relationships between semiquantitative chest computed tomography (CT) scoring and NPPV failure and mortality in patients with COVID-19

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