Severe postpartum disruption of the pelvic ring: report of two cases and review of the literature

Pelvic dislocations are rare during labor, and the treatment is controversial. We report two cases of young women who sustained postpartum disruption of the pelvic ring: one case is an 8.8 cm wide separation of the pubic symphysis with sacroiliac joint disruption underwent surgical stabilization and the second case with 4.0 cm disruption being treated non-operatively. These cases illustrated of importance of accurate diagnosis, careful physical exam, fully informed consent and specific treatment for this condition

High-Risk Human Papillomavirus Detection in Urine Samples from a Referral Population with Cervical Biopsy-Proven High-Grade Lesions

Objective The aim of the study was to evaluate the performance of the HPV-HR test to detect high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) in urine samples in comparison with a commercial molecular HPV test. Materials and Methods This is a prospective study, in which 350 patients diagnosed previously with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grade 2 or higher were enrolled. Urine and cervical specimens were collected. Urine was tested with the HPV-HR test and cervical specimens were tested with the Cobas. Results Of the 336 evaluable patients, there were 271 cases of CIN 2+, of which 202 were CIN 3+ and the remaining 65 patients were less than CIN 2. Positivity was 77.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 72.5-81.5) for the urine samples and 83.6% (95% CI = 79.6-87.6) for the cervical samples. Agreement between cervical and urine samples for HPV detection was 79.8% (κ = 0.363; 95% CI = 0.243-0.484). Sensitivity for CIN 2+ was 83.4% (95% CI = 78.4-87.6) for urine and 90.8% (95% CI = 86.7-92.9) for cervical samples. The sensitivity for CIN 3+ was 85.6% (95% CI = 80.0-90.2) for urine and 92.6% (95% CI = 88.0-95.8) for cervical samples. Specificity for worse than CIN 2 was 50.8% (95% CI = 33.7-59.0) and 46.2% (95% CI = 33.7-59.0) for urine and cervical samples, respectively. Conclusions Although these results demonstrated slightly higher detection rates for HR-HPV and clinical sensitivity in cervical samples than in urine, when compared with histological diagnoses, urine sampling is a viable alternative to access women who do not participate in routine screening programs

Induction of autophagy is a key component of all-trans-retinoic acid-induced differentiation in leukemia cells and a potential target for pharmacological modulation

Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is characterized by the accumulation of immature blood cell precursors in the bone marrow. Pharmacologically overcoming the differentiation block in this condition is an attractive therapeutic avenue, which has achieved success only in a subtype of AML, acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL). Attempts to emulate this success in other AML subtypes have thus far been unsuccessful. Autophagy is a conserved protein degradation pathway with important roles in mammalian cell differentiation, particularly within the hematopoietic system. In the study described here, we investigated the functional importance of autophagy in APL cell differentiation. We found that autophagy is increased during all-trans-retinoic acid (ATRA)-induced granulocytic differentiation of the APL cell line NB4 and that this is associated with increased expression of LC3II and GATE-16 proteins involved in autophagosome formation. Autophagy inhibition, using either drugs (chloroquine/3-methyladenine) or short-hairpin RNA targeting the essential autophagy gene ATG7, attenuates myeloid differentiation. Importantly, we found that enhancing autophagy promotes ATRA-induced granulocytic differentiation of an ATRA-resistant derivative of the non-APL AML HL60 cell line (HL60-Diff-R). These data support the development of strategies to stimulate autophagy as a novel approach to promote differentiation in AML

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

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