Chad V. Pecot

Bio: Chad V. Pecot is an academic researcher from University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The author has contributed to research in topics: Cancer & Metastasis. The author has an hindex of 34, co-authored 78 publications receiving 4897 citations. Previous affiliations of Chad V. Pecot include University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston & University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center.

RNA interference in the clinic: challenges and future directions

Abstract: Inherent difficulties with blocking many desirable targets using conventional approaches have prompted many to consider using RNA interference (RNAi) as a therapeutic approach. Although exploitation of RNAi has immense potential as a cancer therapeutic, many physiological obstacles stand in the way of successful and efficient delivery. This Review explores current challenges to the development of synthetic RNAi-based therapies and considers new approaches to circumvent biological barriers, to avoid intolerable side effects and to achieve controlled and sustained release.

Paraneoplastic Thrombocytosis in Ovarian Cancer

Abstract: From the Departments of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine (R.L.S., A.M.N., H.D.H., J.B.-M., W.H., H.G., K.M., M.M.K.S., E.R.K., A.K.S.), Cancer Biology (R.R., G.L.-B., A.K.S.), Experimental Therapeutics (G.N.A.-P., I.T., B.O., G.L.-B.), Hematology and Oncology (C.V.P.), Pathology (M.T.D.), Benign Hematology (H.G.V., V.A.-K.), Biostatistics (D.U.), and Leukemia (F.G.), and the Center for RNA Interference and Non-Coding RNA (H.D.H., G.L.-B.,

Tumour angiogenesis regulation by the miR-200 family

Abstract: The miR-200 family is well known to inhibit the epithelial-mesenchymal transition, suggesting it may therapeutically inhibit metastatic biology. However, conflicting reports regarding the role of miR-200 in suppressing or promoting metastasis in different cancer types have left unanswered questions. Here we demonstrate a difference in clinical outcome based on miR-200's role in blocking tumour angiogenesis. We demonstrate that miR-200 inhibits angiogenesis through direct and indirect mechanisms by targeting interleukin-8 and CXCL1 secreted by the tumour endothelial and cancer cells. Using several experimental models, we demonstrate the therapeutic potential of miR-200 delivery in ovarian, lung, renal and basal-like breast cancers by inhibiting angiogenesis. Delivery of miR-200 members into the tumour endothelium resulted in marked reductions in metastasis and angiogenesis, and induced vascular normalization. The role of miR-200 in blocking cancer angiogenesis in a cancer-dependent context defines its utility as a potential therapeutic agent.

The Design and Analysis of Experiments

Abstract: THE DESIGN AND ANALYSIS OF EXPERIMENTS. By Oscar Kempthorne. New York, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1952. 631 pp. $8.50. This book by a teacher of statistics (as well as a consultant for \"experimenters\") is a comprehensive study of the philosophical background for the statistical design of experiment. It is necessary to have some facility with algebraic notation and manipulation to be able to use the volume intelligently. The problems are presented from the theoretical point of view, without such practical examples as would be helpful for those not acquainted with mathematics. The mathematical justification for the techniques is given. As a somewhat advanced treatment of the design and analysis of experiments, this volume will be interesting and helpful for many who approach statistics theoretically as well as practically. With emphasis on the \"why,\" and with description given broadly, the author relates the subject matter to the general theory of statistics and to the general problem of experimental inference. MARGARET J. ROBERTSON

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition)

Abstract: 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 flux 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, 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. 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 target by gene knockout or RNA interference more than one autophagy-related protein. In addition, some individual Atg proteins, or groups of proteins, are involved in other cellular pathways implying that 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 assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field.

Comprehensive molecular characterization of gastric adenocarcinoma

Abstract: Gastric cancer was the world’s third leading cause of cancer mortality in 2012, responsible for 723,000 deaths1. The vast majority of gastric cancers are adenocarcinomas, which can be further subdivided into intestinal and diffuse types according to the Lauren classification2. An alternative system, proposed by the World Health Organization, divides gastric cancer into papillary, tubular, mucinous (colloid) and poorly cohesive carcinomas3. These classification systems have little clinical utility, making the development of robust classifiers that can guide patient therapy an urgent priority. The majority of gastric cancers are associated with infectious agents, including the bacterium Helicobacter pylori4 and Epstein–Barr virus (EBV). The distribution of histological subtypes of gastric cancer and the frequencies of H. pylori and EBV associated gastric cancer vary across the globe5. A small minority of gastric cancer cases are associated with germline mutation in E-cadherin (CDH1)6 or mismatch repair genes7 (Lynch syndrome), whereas sporadic mismatch repair-deficient gastric cancers have epigenetic silencing of MLH1 in the context of a CpG island methylator phenotype (CIMP)8. Molecular profiling of gastric cancer has been performed using gene expression or DNA sequencing9–12, but has not led to a clear biologic classification scheme. The goals of this study by The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) were to develop a robust molecular classification of gastric cancer and to identify dysregulated pathways and candidate drivers of distinct classes of gastric cancer.

MicroRNA therapeutics: towards a new era for the management of cancer and other diseases

Abstract: MicroRNAs (miRNAs) are small non-coding RNAs that can modulate mRNA expression. Insights into the roles of miRNAs in development and disease have led to the development of new therapeutic approaches that are based on miRNA mimics or agents that inhibit their functions (antimiRs), and the first such approaches have entered the clinic. This Review discusses the role of different miRNAs in cancer and other diseases, and provides an overview of current miRNA therapeutics in the clinic. In just over two decades since the discovery of the first microRNA (miRNA), the field of miRNA biology has expanded considerably. Insights into the roles of miRNAs in development and disease, particularly in cancer, have made miRNAs attractive tools and targets for novel therapeutic approaches. Functional studies have confirmed that miRNA dysregulation is causal in many cases of cancer, with miRNAs acting as tumour suppressors or oncogenes (oncomiRs), and miRNA mimics and molecules targeted at miRNAs (antimiRs) have shown promise in preclinical development. Several miRNA-targeted therapeutics have reached clinical development, including a mimic of the tumour suppressor miRNA miR-34, which reached phase I clinical trials for treating cancer, and antimiRs targeted at miR-122, which reached phase II trials for treating hepatitis. In this article, we describe recent advances in our understanding of miRNAs in cancer and in other diseases and provide an overview of current miRNA therapeutics in the clinic. We also discuss the challenge of identifying the most efficacious therapeutic candidates and provide a perspective on achieving safe and targeted delivery of miRNA therapeutics.