118 research outputs found

    Autophagy in major human diseases

    Full text link
    Autophagy is a core molecular pathway for the preservation of cellular and organismal homeostasis. Pharmacological and genetic interventions impairing autophagy responses promote or aggravate disease in a plethora of experimental models. Consistently, mutations in autophagy-related processes cause severe human pathologies. Here, we review and discuss preclinical data linking autophagy dysfunction to the pathogenesis of major human disorders including cancer as well as cardiovascular, neurodegenerative, metabolic, pulmonary, renal, infectious, musculoskeletal, and ocular disorders

    Safety and efficacy of hydroxychloroquine as prophylactic against COVID-19 in healthcare workers: a meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials

    Get PDF
    OBJECTIVE: We studied the safety and efficacy of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) as pre-exposure prophylaxis for COVID-19 in healthcare workers (HCWs), using a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). DATA SOURCES: PubMed and EMBASE databases were searched to identify randomised trials studying HCQ. STUDY SELECTION: Ten RCTs were identified (n=5079 participants). DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were used in this systematic review and meta-analysis between HCQ and placebo using a Bayesian random-effects model. A pre-hoc statistical analysis plan was written. MAIN OUTCOMES: The primary efficacy outcome was PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and the primary safety outcome was incidence of adverse events. The secondary outcome included clinically suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection. RESULTS: Compared with placebo, HCWs randomised to HCQ had no significant difference in PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (OR 0.92, 95% credible interval (CI): 0.58, 1.37) or clinically suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection (OR 0.78, 95% CI: 0.57, 1.10), but significant difference in adverse events (OR 1.35, 95% CI: 1.03, 1.73). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Our meta-analysis of 10 RCTs investigating the safety and efficacy of HCQ as pre-exposure prophylaxis in HCWs found that compared with placebo, HCQ does not significantly reduce the risk of confirmed or clinically suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection, while HCQ significantly increases adverse events. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021285093

    Concurrent MEK2 Mutation and BRAF Amplification Confer Resistance to BRAF and MEK Inhibitors in Melanoma

    Get PDF
    SummaryAlthough BRAF and MEK inhibitors have proven clinical benefits in melanoma, most patients develop resistance. We report a de novo MEK2-Q60P mutation and BRAF gain in a melanoma from a patient who progressed on the MEK inhibitor trametinib and did not respond to the BRAF inhibitor dabrafenib. We also identified the same MEK2-Q60P mutation along with BRAF amplification in a xenograft tumor derived from a second melanoma patient resistant to the combination of dabrafenib and trametinib. Melanoma cells chronically exposed to trametinib acquired concurrent MEK2-Q60P mutation and BRAF-V600E amplification, which conferred resistance to MEK and BRAF inhibitors. The resistant cells had sustained MAPK activation and persistent phosphorylation of S6K. A triple combination of dabrafenib, trametinib, and the PI3K/mTOR inhibitor GSK2126458 led to sustained tumor growth inhibition. Hence, concurrent genetic events that sustain MAPK signaling can underlie resistance to both BRAF and MEK inhibitors, requiring novel therapeutic strategies to overcome it

    Lysosomal Lipid Peroxidation Regulates Tumor Immunity

    Get PDF
    Lysosomal inhibition elicited by palmitoyl-protein thioesterase 1 (PPT1) inhibitors such as DC661 can produce cell death, but the mechanism for this is not completely understood. Programmed cell death pathways (autophagy, apoptosis, necroptosis, ferroptosis, and pyroptosis) were not required to achieve the cytotoxic effect of DC661. Inhibition of cathepsins, or iron or calcium chelation, did not rescue DC661-induced cytotoxicity. PPT1 inhibition induced lysosomal lipid peroxidation (LLP), which led to lysosomal membrane permeabilization and cell death that could be reversed by the antioxidant N-acetylcysteine (NAC) but not by other lipid peroxidation antioxidants. The lysosomal cysteine transporter MFSD12 was required for intralysosomal transport of NAC and rescue of LLP. PPT1 inhibition produced cell-intrinsic immunogenicity with surface expression of calreticulin that could only be reversed with NAC. DC661-treated cells primed naive T cells and enhanced T cell-mediated toxicity. Mice vaccinated with DC661-treated cells engendered adaptive immunity and tumor rejection in immune hot tumors but not in immune cold tumors. These findings demonstrate that LLP drives lysosomal cell death, a unique immunogenic form of cell death, pointing the way to rational combinations of immunotherapy and lysosomal inhibition that can be tested in clinical trials

    A Comprehensive Patient-Derived Xenograft Collection Representing the Heterogeneity of Melanoma

    Get PDF
    Therapy of advanced melanoma is changing dramatically. Following mutational and biological subclassification of this heterogeneous cancer, several targeted and immune therapies were approved and increased survival significantly. To facilitate further advancements through pre-clinical in vivo modeling, we have established 459 patient-derived xenografts (PDX) and live tissue samples from 384 patients representing the full spectrum of clinical, therapeutic, mutational, and biological heterogeneity of melanoma. PDX have been characterized using targeted sequencing and protein arrays and are clinically annotated. This exhaustive live tissue resource includes PDX from 57 samples resistant to targeted therapy, 61 samples from responders and non-responders to immune checkpoint blockade, and 31 samples from brain metastasis. Uveal, mucosal, and acral subtypes are represented as well. We show examples of pre-clinical trials that highlight how the PDX collection can be used to develop and optimize precision therapies, biomarkers of response, and the targeting of rare genetic subgroups

    Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition)

    Get PDF
    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
    • 

    corecore