Nelofer Syed

Bio: Nelofer Syed is an academic researcher from Institute of Cancer Research. The author has contributed to research in topics: Medicine & Cancer research. The author has an hindex of 7, co-authored 7 publications receiving 2656 citations. Previous affiliations of Nelofer Syed include Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research.

Tip60 is a haplo-insufficient tumour suppressor required for an oncogene-induced DNA damage response

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.

iASPP preferentially binds p53 proline-rich region and modulates apoptotic function of codon 72-polymorphic p53.

Abstract: iASPP is one of the most evolutionarily conserved inhibitors of p53, whereas ASPP1 and ASPP2 are activators of p53. We show here that, in addition to the DNA-binding domain, the ASPP family members also bind to the proline-rich region of p53, which contains the most common p53 polymorphism at codon 72. Furthermore, the ASPP family members, particularly iASPP, bind to and regulate the activity of p53Pro72 more efficiently than that of p53Arg72. Hence, escape from negative regulation by iASPP is a newly identified mechanism by which p53Arg72 activates apoptosis more efficiently than p53Pro72.

Polymorphism in wild-type p53 modulates response to chemotherapy in vitro and in vivo.

Abstract: A single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) in exon 4 results in expression of either arginine (72R) or proline (72P) at codon 72 of p53. We demonstrate that the in vitro response of cells exposed to anticancer agents is strongly influenced by this SNP in wild-type p53. In inducible systems and in cells expressing the endogenous protein, expression of 72P wild-type p53 results in a predominant G1 arrest, with only a minor apoptosis, at drug concentrations causing extensive apoptosis in cells expressing the 72R wild-type variant. The superior apoptosis-inducing activity of the 72R form correlates with more efficient induction of specific apoptosis-associated genes, and is maximal in the presence of serine 46 (S46). In vivo, the outcome of chemo-radiotherapy of squamous carcinomas is more favourable in cancers retaining a wild-type 72R allele, such cases having higher response rates and longer survival than those with wild-type 72P. Together, these results reveal that this SNP is an important determinant of response to anticancer agents in cells expressing wild-type p53. Analysis of complete p53 genotype (mutation and SNP) merits detailed investigation as a simple means for prediction of treatment response and survival in clinical oncology.

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.

Autophagy: process and function

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.

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.