Feasibility of neonatal dried blood spot retrieval amid evolving state policies (2009-2010): a Children's Oncology Group study

Dried blood spots (DBS) are collected uniformly from US newborns to test for metabolic and other disorders. Because evidence exists for prenatal origins of some diseases, DBS may provide unique prenatal exposure records. Some states retain residual DBS and permit their use in aetiological studies. The primary study aim was to assess the feasibility of obtaining residual DBS from state newborn screening programmes for paediatric and adolescent cancer patients nationwide with parental/subject consent/assent. Families of leukaemia and lymphoma patients aged ≤21 years diagnosed from 1998 to 2007 at randomly selected Children's Oncology Group institutions across the US were questioned (n = 947). Parents/guardians and patients aged ≥18 years were asked to release DBS to investigators in spring 2009. DBS were then requested from states. Overall, 299 families (32%) released DBS. Consenting/assenting patients were born in 39 US states and 46 DBS were obtained from five states; 124 DBS were unobtainable because patients were born prior to dates of state retention. State policies are rapidly evolving and there is ongoing discussion regarding DBS storage and secondary research uses. Currently, population-based DBS studies can be conducted in a limited number of states; fortunately, many have large populations to provide reasonably sized paediatric subject groups

Use of rituximab for refractory cytopenias associated with autoimmune lymphoproliferative syndrome (ALPS)

BACKGROUND: ALPS is a disorder of apoptosis resulting in accumulation of autoreactive lymphocytes, leading to marked lymphadenopathy, hepatosplenomegaly, and multilineage cytopenias due to splenic sequestration and/or autoimmune destruction often presenting in childhood. We summarize our experience of rituximab use during the last 8 years in 12 patients, 9 children, and 3 adults, out of 259 individuals with ALPS, belonging to 166 families currently enrolled in studies at the National Institutes of Health. METHODS: Refractory immune thrombocytopenia (platelet count andlt;20,000) in nine patients and autoimmune hemolytic anemia (AIHA) in three patients led to treatment with rituximab. Among them, seven patients had undergone prior surgical splenectomy; three had significant splenomegaly; and two had no palpable spleen. RESULTS: In seven out of nine patients with ALPS and thrombocytopenia, rituximab therapy led to median response duration of 21 months (range 14-36 months). In contrast, none of the three children treated with rituximab for AIHA responded. Noted toxicities included profound and prolonged hypogammaglobulinemia in three patients requiring replacement IVIG, total absence of antibody response to polysaccharide vaccines lasting up to 4 years after rituximab infusions in one patient and prolonged neutropenia in one patient. CONCLUSION: Toxicities including hypogammaglobulinemia and neutropenia constitute an additional infection risk burden, especially in asplenic individuals, and may warrant avoidance of rituximab until other immunosuppressive medication options are exhausted. Long-term follow-up of ALPS patients with cytopenias after any treatment is necessary to determine relative risks and benefits

Proceedings Of The 23Rd Paediatric Rheumatology European Society Congress: Part Two

PubMe

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