Artificially Induced Epithelial-Mesenchymal Transition in Surgical Subjects: Its Implications in Clinical and Basic Cancer Research

BACKGROUND: Surgical samples have long been used as important subjects for cancer research. In accordance with an increase of neoadjuvant therapy, biopsy samples have recently become imperative for cancer transcriptome. On the other hand, both biopsy and surgical samples are available for expression profiling for predicting clinical outcome by adjuvant therapy; however, it is still unclear whether surgical sample expression profiles are useful for prediction via biopsy samples, because little has been done about comparative gene expression profiling between the two kinds of samples. METHODOLOGY AND FINDINGS: A total of 166 samples (77 biopsy and 89 surgical) of normal and malignant lesions of the esophagus were analyzed by microarrays. Gene expression profiles were compared between biopsy and surgical samples. Artificially induced epithelial-mesenchymal transition (aiEMT) was found in the surgical samples, and also occurred in mouse esophageal epithelial cell layers under an ischemic condition. Identification of clinically significant subgroups was thought to be disrupted by the disorder of the expression profile through this aiEMT. CONCLUSION AND SIGNIFICANCE: This study will evoke the fundamental misinterpretation including underestimation of the prognostic evaluation power of markers by overestimation of EMT IN past cancer research, and will furnish some advice for the near future as follows: 1) Understanding how long the tissues were under an ischemic condition. 2) Prevalence of biopsy samples for in vivo expression profiling with low biases on basic and clinical research. 3) Checking cancer cell contents and normal- or necrotic-tissue contamination in biopsy samples for prevalence

Platelet Activation in Patients After Splenectomy with Total Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer

We investigated change in platelet activation using flow cytometry in patients before and after splenectomy with total gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Methods: Six patients who underwent splenectomy for lymphadenectomy with total gastrectomy for gastric cancer were the subjects in this study. In the patients, platelet count and platelet activation were evaluated before the operation, 1 week after the operation, and 1 month after the operation. Expression of CD62P (P-selectin) was analysed as a marker of platelet activation using flow cytometry. Results: Although platelet count significantly increased 1 week after the operation, the platelet count 1 month after the operation did not increase significantly. Expression of CD62P (P-selectin) significantly decreased at 1 week and 1 month after the operation, compared with the level before the operation. No postoperative complications occurred in any patient. Conclusion: In the present study, platelet activation did not progress after the operation. The results mean that the risk of thrombosis after splenectomy does not increase

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