Francis Ka-Ming Chan

Bio: Francis Ka-Ming Chan is an academic researcher from Duke University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Necroptosis & Programmed cell death. The author has an hindex of 46, co-authored 92 publications receiving 15541 citations. Previous affiliations of Francis Ka-Ming Chan include University of Massachusetts Medical School & National Institutes of Health.

Molecular mechanisms of cell death: recommendations of the Nomenclature Committee on Cell Death 2018.

Abstract: Over the past decade, the Nomenclature Committee on Cell Death (NCCD) has formulated guidelines for the definition and interpretation of cell death from morphological, biochemical, and functional perspectives. Since the field continues to expand and novel mechanisms that orchestrate multiple cell death pathways are unveiled, we propose an updated classification of cell death subroutines focusing on mechanistic and essential (as opposed to correlative and dispensable) aspects of the process. As we provide molecularly oriented definitions of terms including intrinsic apoptosis, extrinsic apoptosis, mitochondrial permeability transition (MPT)-driven necrosis, necroptosis, ferroptosis, pyroptosis, parthanatos, entotic cell death, NETotic cell death, lysosome-dependent cell death, autophagy-dependent cell death, immunogenic cell death, cellular senescence, and mitotic catastrophe, we discuss the utility of neologisms that refer to highly specialized instances of these processes. The mission of the NCCD is to provide a widely accepted nomenclature on cell death in support of the continued development of the field.

Molecular mechanisms of cell death: recommendations of the Nomenclature Committee on Cell Death 2018

Abstract: Over the past decade, the Nomenclature Committee on Cell Death (NCCD) has formulated guidelines for the definition and interpretation of cell death from morphological, biochemical, and functional perspectives. Since the field continues to expand and novel mechanisms that orchestrate multiple cell death pathways are unveiled, we propose an updated classification of cell death subroutines focusing on mechanistic and essential (as opposed to correlative and dispensable) aspects of the process. As we provide molecularly oriented definitions of terms including intrinsic apoptosis, extrinsic apoptosis, mitochondrial permeability transition (MPT)-driven necrosis, necroptosis, ferroptosis, pyroptosis, parthanatos, entotic cell death, NETotic cell death, lysosome-dependent cell death, autophagy-dependent cell death, immunogenic cell death, cellular senescence, and mitotic catastrophe, we discuss the utility of neologisms that refer to highly specialized instances of these processes. The mission of the NCCD is to provide a widely accepted nomenclature on cell death in support of the continued development of the field.

A domain in TNF receptors that mediates ligand-independent receptor assembly and signaling.

Abstract: A conserved domain in the extracellular region of the 60- and 80-kilodalton tumor necrosis factor receptors (TNFRs) was identified that mediates specific ligand-independent assembly of receptor trimers This pre-ligand-binding assembly domain (PLAD) is physically distinct from the domain that forms the major contacts with ligand, but is necessary and sufficient for the assembly of TNFR complexes that bind TNF-alpha and mediate signaling Other members of the TNFR superfamily, including TRAIL receptor 1 and CD40, show similar homotypic association Thus, TNFRs and related receptors appear to function as preformed complexes rather than as individual receptor subunits that oligomerize after ligand binding

CDK inhibitors: positive and negative regulators of G1-phase progression

Abstract: Mitogen-dependent progression through the first gap phase (G1) and initiation of DNA synthesis (S phase) during the mammalian cell division cycle are cooperatively regulated by several classes of cyclin-dependent kinases (CDKs) whose activities are in turn constrained by CDK inhibitors (CKIs). CKIs that govern these events have been assigned to one of two families based on their structures and CDK targets. The first class includes the INK4 proteins (inhibitors of CDK4), so named for their ability to specifically inhibit the catalytic subunits of CDK4 and CDK6. Four such proteins [p16 (Serrano et al. 1993), p15 (Hannon and Beach 1994), p18 (Guan et al. 1994; Hirai et al. 1995), and p19 (Chan et al. 1995; Hirai et al. 1995)] are composed of multiple ankyrin repeats and bind only to CDK4 and CDK6 but not to other CDKs or to D-type cyclins. The INK4 proteins can be contrasted with more broadly acting inhibitors of the Cip/Kip family whose actions affect the activities of cyclin D-, E-, and A-dependent kinases. The latter class includes p21 (Gu et al. 1993; Harper et al. 1993; El-Deiry et al. 1993; Xiong et al. 1993a; Dulic et al. 1994; Noda et al. 1994), p27 (Polyak et al. 1994a,b; Toyoshima and Hunter 1994), and p57 (Lee et al. 1995; Matsuoka et al. 1995), all of which contain characteristic motifs within their amino-terminal moieties that enable them to bind both to cyclin and CDK subunits (Chen et al. 1995, 1996; Nakanishi et al. 1995; Warbrick et al. 1995; Lin et al. 1996; Russo et al. 1996). Based largely on in vitro experiments and in vivo overexpression studies, CKIs of the Cip/Kip family were initially thought to interfere with the activities of cyclin D-, E-, and A-dependent kinases. More recent work has altered this view and revealed that although the Cip/Kip proteins are potent inhibitors of cyclin Eand A-dependent CDK2, they act as positive regulators of cyclin Ddependent kinases. This challenges previous assumptions about how the G1/S transition of the mammalian cell cycle is governed, helps explain some enigmatic features of cell cycle control that also involve the functions of the retinoblastoma protein (Rb) and the INK4 proteins, and changes our thinking about how either p16 loss or overexpression of cyclin D-dependent kinases contribute to cancer. Here we focus on the biochemical interactions that occur between CKIs and cyclin Dand E-dependent kinases in cultured mammalian cells, emphasizing the manner by which different positive and negative regulators of the cell division cycle cooperate to govern the G1-to-S transition. To gain a more comprehensive understanding of the biology of CDK inhibitors, readers are encouraged to refer to a rapidly emerging but already extensive literature (for review, see Elledge and Harper 1994; Sherr and Roberts 1995; Chellappan et al. 1998; Hengst and Reed 1998a; Kiyokawa and Koff 1998; Nakayama 1998; Ruas and Peters 1998).

Cancer Cell Cycles

Abstract: Uncontrolled cell proliferation is the hallmark of cancer, and tumor cells have typically acquired damage to genes that directly regulate their cell cycles. Genetic alterations affecting p16(INK4a) and cyclin D1, proteins that govern phosphorylation of the retinoblastoma protein (RB) and control exit from the G1 phase of the cell cycle, are so frequent in human cancers that inactivation of this pathway may well be necessary for tumor development. Like the tumor suppressor protein p53, components of this "RB pathway," although not essential for the cell cycle per se, may participate in checkpoint functions that regulate homeostatic tissue renewal throughout life.

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.