Displaying all 3 publications

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. Klionsky DJ, Abdelmohsen K, Abe A, Abedin MJ, Abeliovich H, Acevedo Arozena A, et al.
    Autophagy, 2016;12(1):1-222.
    PMID: 26799652 DOI: 10.1080/15548627.2015.1100356
  2. Klionsky DJ, Abdel-Aziz AK, Abdelfatah S, Abdellatif M, Abdoli A, Abel S, et al.
    Autophagy, 2021 Jan;17(1):1-382.
    PMID: 33634751 DOI: 10.1080/15548627.2020.1797280
    In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field.
  3. Shintani T, Rosli SNZ, Takatsu F, Choon YF, Hayashido Y, Toratani S, et al.
    J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol, 2016 11;164:79-84.
    PMID: 26444325 DOI: 10.1016/j.jsbmb.2015.09.043
    We have previously reported that 1,25(OH)2D3 inhibits NF-κB activity and thus inhibits growth of OSCC cells in serum-free culture and down-regulates HBp17/FGFBP-1 expression, which is important for cancer cell growth and angiogenesis. Here, we have investigated the effects of ED-71, an analog of vitamin D3 (VD) on OSCC cell lines in serum-free culture. It is known that ED-71 has a stronger inhibitory effect on bone resorption compared to VD and other VD analogs. To the best of our knowledge, there was no report examining the potential of ED-71 as an anti-cancer agent for OSCC. We found that ED-71 is able to inhibit the growth of cancer cell lines at a concentration of hundred times lower than calcitriol. As Cyp24A1 was reportedly induced in cancer cells, we measured the expression of CYP24A1 in OSCC cell lines (NA and UE), A431 epidermoid carcinoma and normal fibroblast cell (gfi) in serum-free culture. As a result, CYP24A1 mRNA and the protein expression in the OSCC cells treated with ED-71 increased in a dose-dependent manner. However, in vivo experiment, in which the A431 cells were implanted in mice, tumor formation was reduced by the ED-71 treatment with no significant difference between Cyp24A1 expression in the tumors of ED-71-treated and control group, as analyzed by western blotting and immunohistochemistry. These results suggest that ED-71 is a potential anti-cancer agent for OSCC.
Related Terms
Filters
Contact Us

Please provide feedback to Administrator (afdal@afpm.org.my)

External Links