scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

Milena Gasco

Bio: Milena Gasco is an academic researcher from Ente Ospedaliero Ospedali Galliera. The author has contributed to research in topics: Cancer & Breast cancer. The author has an hindex of 27, co-authored 36 publications receiving 4786 citations.

Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
14 Jul 2006-Cell
TL;DR: DRAM (damage-regulated autophagy modulator), a p53 target gene encoding a lysosomal protein that induces macroautophagy, is described as an effector of p53-mediated death and its relationship to p53 function and damage-induced programmed cell death is highlighted.

1,300 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Polymorphism in p53 may influence individual responsiveness to cancer therapy, and clinical response following cisplatin-based chemo-radiotherapy for advanced head and neck cancer is influenced by this polymorphism, cancers expressing 72R mutants having lower response rates than those expressing 72P mutants.

432 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Molecular pathological analysis of the structure and expression of constituents of the p53 pathway is likely to have value in diagnosis, in prognostic assessment and, ultimately, in treatment of breast cancer.
Abstract: p53 mutation remains the most common genetic change identified in human neoplasia. In breast cancer, p53 mutation is associated with more aggressive disease and worse overall survival. The frequency of mutation in p53 is, however, lower in breast cancer than in other solid tumours. Changes, both genetic and epigenetic, have been identified in regulators of p53 activity and in some downstream transcriptional targets of p53 in breast cancers that express wild-type p53. Molecular pathological analysis of the structure and expression of constituents of the p53 pathway is likely to have value in diagnosis, in prognostic assessment and, ultimately, in treatment of breast cancer.

381 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
30 Aug 2007-Nature
TL;DR: In both mouse and human, Tip60 has a haplo-insufficient tumour suppressor activity that is independent from—but not contradictory with—its role within the ARF–p53 pathway.
Abstract: The acetyl-transferase Tip60 might influence tumorigenesis in multiple ways. First, Tip60 is a co-regulator of transcription factors that either promote or suppress tumorigenesis, such as Myc and p53. Second, Tip60 modulates DNA-damage response (DDR) signalling, and a DDR triggered by oncogenes can counteract tumour progression. Using E(mu)-myc transgenic mice that are heterozygous for a Tip60 gene (Htatip) knockout allele (hereafter denoted as Tip60+/- mice), we show that Tip60 counteracts Myc-induced lymphomagenesis in a haplo-insufficient manner and in a time window that is restricted to a pre- or early-tumoral stage. Tip60 heterozygosity severely impaired the Myc-induced DDR but caused no general DDR defect in B cells. Myc- and p53-dependent transcription were not affected, and neither were Myc-induced proliferation, activation of the ARF-p53 tumour suppressor pathway or the resulting apoptotic response. We found that the human TIP60 gene (HTATIP) is a frequent target for mono-allelic loss in human lymphomas and head-and-neck and mammary carcinomas, with concomitant reduction in mRNA levels. Immunohistochemical analysis also demonstrated loss of nuclear TIP60 staining in mammary carcinomas. These events correlated with disease grade and frequently concurred with mutation of p53. Thus, in both mouse and human, Tip60 has a haplo-insufficient tumour suppressor activity that is independent from-but not contradictory with-its role within the ARF-p53 pathway. We suggest that this is because critical levels of Tip60 are required for mounting an oncogene-induced DDR in incipient tumour cells, the failure of which might synergize with p53 mutation towards tumour progression.

312 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Although all p53, p63 and p73 family members are regulators of the cell cycle and apoptosis, the developmental abnormalities of p73- and p63-null mice do not show enhanced tumour susceptibility of p53 knockouts, suggesting that complex regulatory processes modulate the functional effects of this family of proteins.

284 citations


Cited by
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
11 Jan 2008-Cell
TL;DR: This Review summarizes recent advances in understanding the physiological functions of autophagy and its possible roles in the causation and prevention of human diseases.

6,301 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
Daniel J. Klionsky1, Kotb Abdelmohsen2, Akihisa Abe3, Joynal Abedin4  +2519 moreInstitutions (695)
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macro-autophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes.
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.

5,187 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: These guidelines are presented 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.
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.

4,316 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this review, the process of autophagy is summarized, and the role of autophileagy is discussed in a process-based manner.
Abstract: Autophagy is an intracellular degradation system that delivers cytoplasmic constituents to the lysosome. Despite its simplicity, recent progress has demonstrated that autophagy plays a wide variety of physiological and pathophysiological roles, which are sometimes complex. Autophagy consists of several sequential steps--sequestration, transport to lysosomes, degradation, and utilization of degradation products--and each step may exert different function. In this review, the process of autophagy is summarized, and the role of autophagy is discussed in a process-based manner.

3,527 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
Lorenzo Galluzzi1, Lorenzo Galluzzi2, Ilio Vitale3, Stuart A. Aaronson4  +183 moreInstitutions (111)
TL;DR: The Nomenclature Committee on Cell Death (NCCD) has formulated guidelines for the definition and interpretation of cell death from morphological, biochemical, and functional perspectives.
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.

3,301 citations