Gabriel Lopez-Berestein

Bio: Gabriel Lopez-Berestein is an academic researcher from University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. The author has contributed to research in topics: Amphotericin B & Liposome. The author has an hindex of 37, co-authored 77 publications receiving 7065 citations. Previous affiliations of Gabriel Lopez-Berestein include University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston & University of Texas System.

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy in higher eukaryotes

Abstract: Research in autophagy continues to accelerate,(1) and as a result many new scientists are entering the field Accordingly, it is important to establish a standard set of criteria for monitoring macroautophagy in different organisms Recent reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose(2,3) There are many useful and convenient methods that can be used to monitor macroautophagy in yeast, but relatively few in other model systems, and there is much confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure macroautophagy in higher eukaryotes A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers of autophagosomes versus those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway; thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from fully functional autophagy that includes delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi) Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of the methods that can be used by investigators who are attempting to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as by reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that investigate these processes This set of guidelines is 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 verify an autophagic response

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.,

Liposomal Amphotericin B for the Treatment of Systemic Fungal Infections in Patients with Cancer: A Preliminary Study

Abstract: Twelve patients with hematologic malignancies complicated by fungal infections were treated with liposomal amphotericin B (L-AmpB). Nine patients were granulocytopenic; the three additional patients with normal granulocyte counts were immunosuppressed. All patients had biopsy findings or cultural evidence of the progression of their fungal infection while being treated with conventional amphotericin B. Doses of 0.8-1.0 mg/kg of L-AmpB were administered intravenously every 24-72 hr. Three patients had a complete remission, five had a partial remission, and four showed no improvements. A total of 161 doses of L-AmpB were administered. Fever and chills occurred on seven occasions. No hematologic or blood chemistry abnormalities related to L-AmpB treatment were observed.

miR-34a blocks osteoporosis and bone metastasis by inhibiting osteoclastogenesis and Tgif2

Abstract: Bone-resorbing osteoclasts significantly contribute to osteoporosis and bone metastases of cancer. MicroRNAs play important roles in physiology and disease, and present tremendous therapeutic potential. Nonetheless, how microRNAs regulate skeletal biology is underexplored. Here we identify miR-34a as a novel and critical suppressor of osteoclastogenesis, bone resorption and the bone metastatic niche. miR-34a is downregulated during osteoclast differentiation. Osteoclastic miR-34a-overexpressing transgenic mice exhibit lower bone resorption and higher bone mass. Conversely, miR-34a knockout and heterozygous mice exhibit elevated bone resorption and reduced bone mass. Consequently, ovariectomy-induced osteoporosis, as well as bone metastasis of breast and skin cancers, are diminished in osteoclastic miR-34a transgenic mice, and can be effectively attenuated by miR-34a nanoparticle treatment. Mechanistically, we identify transforming growth factor-β-induced factor 2 (Tgif2) as an essential direct miR-34a target that is pro-osteoclastogenic. Tgif2 deletion reduces bone resorption and abolishes miR-34a regulation. Together, using mouse genetic, pharmacological and disease models, we reveal miR-34a as a key osteoclast suppressor and a potential therapeutic strategy to confer skeletal protection and ameliorate bone metastasis of cancers.

Treatment and Prophylaxis of Disseminated Infection Due to Candida albicans in Mice with Liposome-Encapsulated Amphotericin B

Abstract: The toxicology of liposome-encapsulated amphotericin B in mice and its efficacy in the treatment and prophylaxis of systemic candidiasis in these animals were studied. The toxicology studies indicated that the maximal tolerated dose of free amphotericin B was 0.8 mg/kg of body weight and the 50% lethal dose (LD50) was reached at 1.2 mg/kg, while neither the maximal tolerated dose nor the LD50 for the liposomal amphotericin B was reached at a dose of 12 mg/kg. No abnormalities in blood chemistry or histology were observed in the animals injected with encapsulated amphotericin B, while the administration of free amphotericin B was associated with nephrocalcinosis and renal parenchymal edema. The encapsulated drug was as effective as the free drug when used in similar concentrations, while the animals treated with higher concentrations of liposomal amphotericin B (4 mg/kg) had a longer survival time. Thus, an improved therapeutic index resulted by encapsulating amphotericin B in liposomes.

Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine

Abstract: The 11th edition of Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine welcomes Anthony Fauci to its editorial staff, in addition to more than 85 new contributors. While the organization of the book is similar to previous editions, major emphasis has been placed on disorders that affect multiple organ systems. Important advances in genetics, immunology, and oncology are emphasized. Many chapters of the book have been rewritten and describe major advances in internal medicine. Subjects that received only a paragraph or two of attention in previous editions are now covered in entire chapters. Among the chapters that have been extensively revised are the chapters on infections in the compromised host, on skin rashes in infections, on many of the viral infections, including cytomegalovirus and Epstein-Barr virus, on sexually transmitted diseases, on diabetes mellitus, on disorders of bone and mineral metabolism, and on lymphadenopathy and splenomegaly. The major revisions in these chapters and many

AMPK and mTOR regulate autophagy through direct phosphorylation of Ulk1

Abstract: Autophagy is a process by which components of the cell are degraded to maintain essential activity and viability in response to nutrient limitation. Extensive genetic studies have shown that the yeast ATG1 kinase has an essential role in autophagy induction. Furthermore, autophagy is promoted by AMP activated protein kinase (AMPK), which is a key energy sensor and regulates cellular metabolism to maintain energy homeostasis. Conversely, autophagy is inhibited by the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR), a central cell-growth regulator that integrates growth factor and nutrient signals. Here we demonstrate a molecular mechanism for regulation of the mammalian autophagy-initiating kinase Ulk1, a homologue of yeast ATG1. Under glucose starvation, AMPK promotes autophagy by directly activating Ulk1 through phosphorylation of Ser 317 and Ser 777. Under nutrient sufficiency, high mTOR activity prevents Ulk1 activation by phosphorylating Ulk1 Ser 757 and disrupting the interaction between Ulk1 and AMPK. This coordinated phosphorylation is important for Ulk1 in autophagy induction. Our study has revealed a signalling mechanism for Ulk1 regulation and autophagy induction in response to nutrient signalling.

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.

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

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. 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 vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased 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. 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. 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 autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field.