Sine oculis homeoprotein 1 (SIX1), a prominent representative of the homeodomain transcription factors within the SIX family, has attracted significant interest owing to its role in tumorigenesis, cancer progression, and prognostic assessments. Initially recognized for its pivotal role in embryonic development, SIX1 has emerged as a resurgent factor across a diverse set of mammalian cancers. Over the past two decades, numerous investigations have emphasized SIX1's dual significance as a developmental regulator and central player in oncogenic processes. A mounting body of evidence links SIX1 to the initiation of diverse cancers, encompassing enhanced cellular metabolism and advancement. This review provides an overview of the multifaceted roles of SIX1 in both normal development and oncogenic processes, emphasizing its importance as a possible therapeutic target and prognostic marker. Additionally, this review discusses the natural product agents that inhibit various pro-oncogenic mechanisms associated with SIX1.
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.