Intrapulmonary Cystic Lymphangioma in a 2-month-old Infant

Lymphangioma is an abnormal collection of lymphatics that are developmentally isolated from the normal lymphatic system. Lymphangioma rarely presents as a solitary pulmonary lesion. We report a rare case of intrapulmonary cystic lymphangioma involving the upper lobe of the right lung, which presented with dyspnea in a 2-month-old infant. High-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) of the chest demonstrated a well-circumscribed, multiseptate, cystic lesion in the upper lobe of the right lung, mimicking the feature of type I congenital cystic adenomatoid malformation. The tumor was removed by bilobectomy of the upper and middle lobes of the right lung, and its pathologic examination confirmed the diagnosis of an intrapulmonary cystic lymphangioma

Production of Mesenchymal Stem Cells through Stem Cell Reprogramming

Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) possess a broad spectrum of therapeutic applications and have been used in clinical trials. MSCs are mainly retrieved from adult or fetal tissues. However, there are many obstacles with the use of tissue-derived MSCs, such as shortages of tissue sources, difficult and invasive retrieval methods, cell population heterogeneity, low purity, cell senescence, and loss of pluripotency and proliferative capacities over continuous passages. Therefore, other methods to obtain high-quality MSCs need to be developed to overcome the limitations of tissue-derived MSCs. Pluripotent stem cells (PSCs), including embryonic stem cells (ESCs) and induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs), are considered potent sources for the derivation of MSCs. PSC-derived MSCs (PSC-MSCs) may surpass tissue-derived MSCs in proliferation capacity, immunomodulatory activity, and in vivo therapeutic applications. In this review, we will discuss basic as well as recent protocols for the production of PSC-MSCs and their in vitro and in vivo therapeutic efficacies. A better understanding of the current advances in the production of PSC-MSCs will inspire scientists to devise more efficient differentiation methods that will be a breakthrough in the clinical application of PSC-MSCs

Bioinformatics Approach for Identifying Novel Biomarkers and Their Signaling Pathways Involved in Interstitial Cystitis/Bladder Pain Syndrome with Hunner Lesion

The complexity of interstitial cystitis/bladder pain syndrome (IC/BPS) has led to considerable uncertainty in terms of diagnosis and prevalence of the condition. Here, we try to identify the IC/BPS-associated genes through an integrated analysis of Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) datasets and confirm experimentally to predict the pathologic diagnosis of IC/BPS. Data mining analysis of GEO datasets (GSE621, GSE11783, GSE28242, and GSE57560) revealed a total of 53 (51 upregulated and two downregulated) common differentially expressed genes (DEGs) in IC/BPS. A protein–protein interaction (PPI) network was then constructed with the 53 common DEGs using Cytoscape v3.7.2, and subsequently, six hub genes (CD5, CD38, ITGAL, IL7R, KLRB1, and IL7R) were identified using cytoHubba v0.1 that were upregulated in IC/BPS. Enrichment analysis of common DEGs revealed that hematopoietic cell lineage, immune system, and T-cell receptor (TCR) signaling in naïve CD4+ T cell signaling pathways were prominently involved with the common 51 upregulated DEGs. The two common downregulated DEGs may enrich linoleic acid metabolism and synthesis of epoxy (EET) and dihydroxyeicosatrienoic acid (DHET) signaling pathways in IC/BPS. Moreover, our RT-PCR data confirmed that the expression of the five hub genes (CD38, ITGAL, IL7R, KLRB1, and IL7R) was significantly augmented in IC/BPS patients’ samples when compared with their normal counterparts. In this study, we systematically predict the significant biomarkers and possible signaling pathways involved in IC/BPS, confirming the differential expression of the hub genes in tissue samples from patients with IC/BPS. Thus, the hub genes might be used as potential diagnostic biomarkers of IC/BPS

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