New insights into radioresistance in breast cancer identify a dual function of miR‐122 as a tumor suppressor and oncomiR

Radioresistance of tumor cells gives rise to local recurrence and disease progression in many patients. MicroRNAs (miRNAs) are master regulators of gene expression that control oncogenic pathways to modulate the radiotherapy response of cells. In the present study, differential expression profiling assays identified 16 deregulated miRNAs in acquired radioresistant breast cancer cells, of which miR‐122 was observed to be up‐regulated. Functional analysis revealed that miR‐122 has a role as a tumor suppressor in parental cells by decreasing survival and promoting radiosensitivity. However, in radioresistant cells, miR‐122 functions as an oncomiR by promoting survival. The transcriptomic landscape resulting from knockdown of miR‐122 in radioresistant cells showed modulation of the ZNF611, ZNF304, RIPK1, HRAS, DUSP8 and TNFRSF21 genes. Moreover, miR‐122 and the set of affected genes were prognostic factors in breast cancer patients treated with radiotherapy. Our data indicate that up‐regulation of miR‐122 promotes cell survival in acquired radioresistant breast cancer and also suggest that miR‐122 differentially controls the response to radiotherapy by a dual function as a tumor suppressor an and oncomiR dependent on cell phenotype

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)

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