Real-time PCR complements immunohistochemistry in the determination of HER-2/neu status in breast cancer

BACKGROUND: The clinical benefit of determining the status of HER-2/neu amplification in breast cancer patients is well accepted. Although immunohistochemistry (IHC) is the most frequently used method to assess the over-expression of HER-2 protein, fluorescent in-situ hybridization (FISH) is recognized as the "gold standard" for the determining of HER-2/neu status. The greatest discordance between the two methods occurs among breast tumors that receive an indeterminate IHC score of 2+. More recently, a real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay using the LightCycler(® )has been developed for quantifying HER-2/neu gene amplification. In this study, we evaluated the sensitivity and specificity of a commercially available LightCycler assay as it compares to FISH. To determine whether this assay provides an accurate alternative for the determination of HER-2/neu status, we focused primarily on tumors that were deemed indeterminate or borderline status by IHC. METHODS: Thirty-nine breast tumors receiving an IHC score of 2+ were evaluated by both FISH and LightCycler(® )technologies in order to determine whether quantitative real-time PCR provides an accurate alternative for the determination of HER-2/neu status. RESULTS: We found a high concordance (92%) between FISH and real-time PCR results. We also observed that 10% of these tumors were positive for gene amplification by both FISH and real-time PCR. CONCLUSION: The data show that the results obtained for the gene amplification of HER-2/neu by real-time PCR on the LightCycler(® )instrument is comparable to results obtained by FISH. These results therefore suggest that real-time PCR analysis, using the LightCycler(®), is a viable alternative to FISH for reassessing breast tumors which receive an IHC score of 2+, and that a combined IHC and real-time PCR approach for the determination of HER-2 status in breast cancer patients may be an effective and efficient strategy

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