Small molecule XIAP inhibitors enhance TRAIL-Lnduced apoptosis and antitumor activity in preclinical models of pancreatic carcinoma

Evasion of apoptosis is a characteristic feature of pancreatic cancer, a prototypic cancer that is refractory to current treatment approaches. Hence, there is an urgent need to design rational strategies that counter apoptosis resistance. To explore X-Iinked inhibitor of apoptosis (XIAP) as a therapeutic target in pancreatic cancer, we analyzed the expression of XIAP in pancreatic tumor samples and evaluated the effect of small molecule XIAP inhibitors alone and in combination with tumor necrosis factor-related apoptosis-inducing ligand (TRAIL) against pancreatic carcinoma in vitro and in vivo. Here, we report that XIAP is highly expressed in pancreatic adenocarcinoma samples compared with normal pancreatic ducts. Small molecule XIAP inhibitors synergize with TRAIL to induce apoptosis and to inhibit long-term clonogenic survival of pancreatic carcinoma cells. In contrast, they do not reverse the lack of toxicity of TRAIL on nonmalignant cells in vitro or normal tissues in vivo, pointing to a therapeutic index. Most importantly, XIAP inhibitors cooperate with TRAIL to trigger apoptosis and suppress pancreatic carcinoma growth in vivo in two preclinical models, i.e., the chorioallantoic membrane model and a mouse xenograft model. Parallel immunohistochemical analysis of tumor tissue under therapy reveals that the XIAP inhibitor acts in concert with TRAIL to cause caspase-3 activation and apoptosis. In conclusion, our findings provide, for the first time, evidence in vivo that XIAP inhibitors prime pancreatic carcinoma cells for TRAIL-induced apoptosis and potentiate the antitumor activity of TRAIL against established pancreatic carcinoma. These findings build the rationale for further (pre)clinical development of XIAP inhibitors and TRAIL against pancreatic cancer. © 2009 American Association for Cancer Research

A qualitative investigation of lived experiences of long-term health condition management with people who are food insecure.

Background: As more people are living with one or more chronic health conditions, supporting patients to become activated, self-managers of their conditions has become a key health policy focus both in the UK and internationally. There is also growing evidence in the UK that those with long term health conditions have an increased risk of being food insecure. While international evidence indicates that food insecurity adversely affects individual's health condition management capability, little is known about how those so affected manage their condition(s) in this context. An investigation of lived experience of health condition management was undertaken with food insecure people living in north east Scotland. The study aimed to explore the challenges facing food insecure people in terms of, i. their self-care condition management practices, and ii. disclosing and discussing the experience of managing their condition with a health care professional, and iii. Notions of the support they might wish to receive from them. Methods: Twenty in-depth interviews were conducted with individuals attending a food bank and food pantry in north east Scotland. Interview audio recordings were fully transcribed and thematically analysed. Results: Individuals reporting multiple physical and mental health conditions, took part in the study. Four main themes were identified i.e.: 1. food practices, trade-offs and compromises, that relate to economic constraints and lack of choice; 2. illness experiences and food as they relate to physical and mental ill-health; 3. (in) visibility of participants' economic vulnerability within health care consultations; and 4. perceptions and expectations of the health care system. Conclusions: This study, the first of its kind in the UK, indicated that participants' health condition management aspirations were undermined by the experience of food insecurity, and that their health care consultations in were, on the whole, devoid of discussions of those challenges. As such, the study indicated practical and ethical implications for health care policy, practice and research associated with the risk of intervention-generated health inequalities that were suggested by this study. Better understanding is needed about the impact of household food insecurity on existing ill health, wellbeing and health care use across the UK

An NF-κB and Slug Regulatory Loop Active in Early Vertebrate Mesoderm

BACKGROUND: In both Drosophila and the mouse, the zinc finger transcription factor Snail is required for mesoderm formation; its vertebrate paralog Slug (Snai2) appears to be required for neural crest formation in the chick and the clawed frog Xenopus laevis. Both Slug and Snail act to induce epithelial to mesenchymal transition (EMT) and to suppress apoptosis. METHODOLOGY & PRINCIPLE FINDINGS: Morpholino-based loss of function studies indicate that Slug is required for the normal expression of both mesodermal and neural crest markers in X. laevis. Both phenotypes are rescued by injection of RNA encoding the anti-apoptotic protein Bcl-xL; Bcl-xL's effects are dependent upon IκB kinase-mediated activation of the bipartite transcription factor NF-κB. NF-κB, in turn, directly up-regulates levels of Slug and Snail RNAs. Slug indirectly up-regulates levels of RNAs encoding the NF-κB subunit proteins RelA, Rel2, and Rel3, and directly down-regulates levels of the pro-apopotic Caspase-9 RNA. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: These studies reveal a Slug/Snail–NF-κB regulatory circuit, analogous to that present in the early Drosophila embryo, active during mesodermal formation in Xenopus. This is a regulatory interaction of significance both in development and in the course of inflammatory and metastatic disease

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