6 research outputs found

    Anti-angiogenic effect of high doses of ascorbic acid

    Get PDF
    Pharmaceutical doses of ascorbic acid (AA, vitamin C, or its salts) have been reported to exert anticancer activity in vitro and in vivo. One proposed mechanism involves direct cytotoxicity mediated by accumulation of ascorbic acid radicals and hydrogen peroxide in the extracellular environment of tumor cells. However, therapeutic effects have been reported at concentrations insufficient to induce direct tumor cell death. We hypothesized that AA may exert anti-angiogenic effects. To test this, we expanded endothelial progenitor cells (EPCs) from peripheral blood and assessed, whether or not high dose AA would inhibit EPC ability to migrate, change energy metabolism, and tube formation ability. We also evaluated the effects of high dose AA on angiogenic activities of HUVECs (human umbilical vein endothelial cells) and HUAECs (human umbilical arterial endothelial cells). According to our data, concentrations of AA higher than 100 mg/dl suppressed capillary-like tube formation on Matrigel for all cells tested and the effect was more pronounced for progenitor cells in comparison with mature cells. Co-culture of differentiated endothelial cells with progenitor cells showed that there was incorporation of EPCs in vessels formed by HUVECs and HUAECs. Cell migration was assessed using an in vitro wound healing model. The results of these experiments showed an inverse correlation between AA concentrations relative to both cell migration and gap filling capacity. Suppression of NO (nitric oxide) generation appeared to be one of the mechanisms by which AA mediated angiostatic effects. This study supports further investigation into non-cytotoxic antitumor activities of AA

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

    Get PDF
    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 (3rd edition)

    No full text

    Erratum to: Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition) (Autophagy, 12, 1, 1-222, 10.1080/15548627.2015.1100356

    No full text
    non present
    corecore