Human haematopoietic stem cells express Oct4 pseudogenes and lack the ability to initiate Oct4 promoter-driven gene expression

The transcription factor Oct4 is well defined as a key regulator of embryonic stem (ES) cell pluripotency. In recent years, the role of Oct4 has purportedly extended to the self renewal and maintenance of multipotency in adult stem cell (ASC) populations. This profile has arisen mainly from reports utilising reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) based methodologies and has since come under scrutiny following the discovery that many developmental genes have multiple pseudogenes associated with them. Six known pseudogenes exist for Oct4, all of which exhibit very high sequence homology (three >97%), and for this reason the generation of artefacts may have contributed to false identification of Oct4 in somatic cell populations. While ASC lack a molecular blueprint of transcription factors proposed to be involved with 'stemness' as described for ES cells, it is not unreasonable to assume that similar gene patterns may exist. The focus of this work was to corroborate reports that Oct4 is involved in the regulation of ASC self-renewal and differentiation, using a combination of methodologies to rule out pseudogene interference. Haematopoietic stem cells (HSC) derived from human umbilical cord blood (UCB) and various differentiated cell lines underwent RT-PCR, product sequencing and transfection studies using an Oct4 promoter-driven reporter. In summary, only the positive control expressed Oct4, with all other cell types expressing a variety of Oct4 pseudogenes. Somatic cells were incapable of utilising an exogenous Oct4 promoter construct, leading to the conclusion that Oct4 does not appear involved in the multipotency of human HSC from UCB

Age at first childbirth and oral contraceptive use are associated with risk of androgen receptor-negative breast cancer: the Malmö Diet and Cancer Cohort.

Risk factors for breast cancer vary according to breast cancer subtype. This study analyzes the impact of potential risk factors in breast cancer by androgen receptor (AR) status

Biological Effects of a De Novo Designed Myxoma Virus Peptide Analogue: Evaluation of Cytotoxicity on Tumor Cells

Not availabl

Can a single model explain both breast cancer and prostate cancer?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The Estradiol-Dihydrotestosterone model of prostate cancer (PC) showed how the interaction of hormones with specific hormone receptors affected apoptosis. The same hormone can produce different effects, depending on which hormone receptor it interacts with.</p> <p>Model</p> <p>This model proposes that the first step in the development of most PC and breast cancer (BC) occurs when aromatase converts testosterone to estradiol (E2). A sufficiently high enough local level of E2 results in telomerase activity. The telomerase activity allows cell division and may lead to BC or PC, which will proliferate if the rate of cell division is greater than the rate of cell death. The effect of hormones on their hormone receptors will affect the rate of cell death and determine whether or not the cancer proliferates.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>By minimizing bcl-2 and maximizing apoptotic proteins, new systemic treatments for BC and PC can be developed that may be more effective than existing treatments.</p

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

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. For example, 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 versus those that measure fl ux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process including the amount and rate of cargo sequestered and degraded). In particular, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation must be differentiated from stimuli that increase autophagic activity, defi ned as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (inmost 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 fi eld 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. It is worth emphasizing here that lysosomal digestion is a stage of autophagy and evaluating its competence is a crucial part of the evaluation of autophagic flux, or complete autophagy. 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. Along these lines, because of the potential for pleiotropic effects due to blocking autophagy through genetic manipulation it is imperative to delete or knock down more than one autophagy-related gene. In addition, some individual Atg proteins, or groups of proteins, are involved in other cellular pathways so not all Atg proteins can be used as a specific marker for an autophagic process. 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