Pan-cancer analysis of whole genomes

Cancer is driven by genetic change, and the advent of massively parallel sequencing has enabled systematic documentation of this variation at the whole-genome scale(1-3). Here we report the integrative analysis of 2,658 whole-cancer genomes and their matching normal tissues across 38 tumour types from the Pan-Cancer Analysis of Whole Genomes (PCAWG) Consortium of the International Cancer Genome Consortium (ICGC) and The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA). We describe the generation of the PCAWG resource, facilitated by international data sharing using compute clouds. On average, cancer genomes contained 4-5 driver mutations when combining coding and non-coding genomic elements; however, in around 5% of cases no drivers were identified, suggesting that cancer driver discovery is not yet complete. Chromothripsis, in which many clustered structural variants arise in a single catastrophic event, is frequently an early event in tumour evolution; in acral melanoma, for example, these events precede most somatic point mutations and affect several cancer-associated genes simultaneously. Cancers with abnormal telomere maintenance often originate from tissues with low replicative activity and show several mechanisms of preventing telomere attrition to critical levels. Common and rare germline variants affect patterns of somatic mutation, including point mutations, structural variants and somatic retrotransposition. A collection of papers from the PCAWG Consortium describes non-coding mutations that drive cancer beyond those in the TERT promoter(4); identifies new signatures of mutational processes that cause base substitutions, small insertions and deletions and structural variation(5,6); analyses timings and patterns of tumour evolution(7); describes the diverse transcriptional consequences of somatic mutation on splicing, expression levels, fusion genes and promoter activity(8,9); and evaluates a range of more-specialized features of cancer genomes(8,10-18).Peer reviewe

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

One stop shop: backbones trees for important phytopathogenic genera: I (2014)

Many fungi are pathogenic on plants and cause significant damage in agriculture and forestry. They are also part of the natural ecosystem and may play a role in regulating plant numbers/density. Morphological identification and analysis of plant pathogenic fungi, while important, is often hampered by the scarcity of discriminatory taxonomic characters and the endophytic or inconspicuous nature of these fungi. Molecular (DNA sequence) data for plant pathogenic fungi have emerged as key information for diagnostic and classification studies, although hampered in part by non-standard laboratory practices and analytical methods. To facilitate current and future research, this study provides phylogenetic synopses for 25 groups of plant pathogenic fungi in the Ascomycota, Basidiomycota, Mucormycotina (Fungi), and Oomycota, using recent molecular data, up-to-date names, and the latest taxonomic insights. Lineage-specific laboratory protocols together with advice on their application, as well as general observations, are also provided. We hope to maintain updated backbone trees of these fungal lineages over time and to publish them jointly as new data emerge. Researchers of plant pathogenic fungi not covered by the present study are invited to join this future effort. Bipolaris, Botryosphaeriaceae, Botryosphaeria, Botrytis, Choanephora, Colletotrichum, Curvularia, Diaporthe, Diplodia, Dothiorella, Fusarium, Gilbertella, Lasiodiplodia, Mucor, Neofusicoccum, Pestalotiopsis, Phyllosticta, Phytophthora, Puccinia, Pyrenophora, Pythium, Rhizopus, Stagonosporopsis, Ustilago and Verticillium are dealt with in this paper

Notes for genera – Ascomycota

Knowledge of the relationships and thus the classification of fungi, has developed rapidly with increasingly widespread use of molecular techniques, over the past 10--15 years, and continues to accelerate. Several genera have been found to be polyphyletic, and their generic concepts have subsequently been emended. New names have thus been introduced for species which are phylogenetically distinct from the type species of particular genera. The ending of the separate naming of morphs of the same species in 2011, has also caused changes in fungal generic names. In order to facilitate access to all important changes, it was desirable to compile these in a single document. The present article provides a list of generic names of Ascomycota (approximately 6500 accepted names published to the end of 2016), including those which are lichen-forming. Notes and summaries of the changes since the last edition of `Ainsworth Bisby's Dictionary of the Fungi' in 2008 are provided. The notes include the number of accepted species, classification, type species (with location of the type material), culture availability, life-styles, distribution, and selected publications that have appeared since 2008. This work is intended to provide the foundation for updating the ascomycete component of the ``Without prejudice list of generic names of Fungi'' published in 2013, which will be developed into a list of protected generic names. This will be subjected to the XIXth International Botanical Congress in Shenzhen in July 2017 agreeing to a modification in the rules relating to protected lists, and scrutiny by procedures determined by the Nomenclature Committee for Fungi (NCF). The previously invalidly published generic names Barriopsis, Collophora (as Collophorina), Cryomyces, Dematiopleospora, Heterospora (as Heterosporicola), Lithophila, Palmomyces (as Palmaria) and Saxomyces are validated, as are two previously invalid family names, Bartaliniaceae and Wiesneriomycetaceae. Four species of Lalaria, which were invalidly published are transferred to Taphrina and validated as new combinations. Catenomycopsis Tibell Constant. is reduced under Chaenothecopsis Vain., while Dichomera Cooke is reduced under Botryosphaeria Ces. De Not. (Art. 59)

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