BRF1 is a rate-limiting factor for RNA Polymerase III-mediated transcription and is elevated in numerous cancers. Here, we report that elevated levels of BRF1 associate with poor prognosis in human prostate cancer. In vitro studies in human prostate cancer cell lines demonstrated that transient overexpression of BRF1 increased cell proliferation whereas the transient downregulation of BRF1 reduced proliferation and mediated cell cycle arrest. Consistent with our clinical observations, BRF1 overexpression in a Pten-deficient mouse (PtenΔ/Δ BRF1Tg) prostate cancer model accelerated prostate carcinogenesis and shortened survival. In PtenΔ/Δ BRF1Tg tumours, immune and inflammatory processes were altered, with reduced tumoral infiltration of neutrophils and CD4 positive T cells, which can be explained by decreased levels of complement factor D (CFD) and C7 components of the complement cascade, an innate immune pathway that influences the adaptive immune response. We tested if the secretome was involved in BRF1-driven tumorigenesis. Unbiased proteomic analysis on BRF1-overexpresing PC3 cells confirmed reduced levels of CFD in the secretome, implicating the complement system in prostate carcinogenesis. We further identify that expression of C7 significantly correlates with expression of CD4 and has the potential to alter clinical outcome in human prostate cancer, where low levels of C7 associate with poorer prognosis.
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.