scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

Per Nilsson

Bio: Per Nilsson is an academic researcher from Karolinska Institutet. The author has contributed to research in topics: Medicine & Population. The author has an hindex of 25, co-authored 82 publications receiving 7340 citations. Previous affiliations of Per Nilsson include RIKEN Brain Science Institute & Karolinska University Hospital.


Papers
More filters
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: In this article, the authors present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes.
Abstract: In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field.

1,129 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
Renu R. Bahadoer1, Esmée A Dijkstra2, Boudewijn van Etten2, Corrie A.M. Marijnen3, Corrie A.M. Marijnen1, Hein Putter1, Elma Meershoek-Klein Kranenbarg1, Annet G H Roodvoets1, Iris D. Nagtegaal4, Regina G. H. Beets-Tan3, Lennart Blomqvist5, Tone Fokstuen5, Albert J. ten Tije, Jaume Capdevila6, Mathijs P. Hendriks, Ibrahim Edhemovic7, Andrés Cervantes8, Per Nilsson5, Bengt Glimelius9, Cornelis J.H. van de Velde1, Geke A. P. Hospers2, L. Østergaard, F. Svendsen Jensen, P. Pfeiffer, K.E.J. Jensen, M.P. Hendriks, W.H. Schreurs, H.P. Knol, J.J. van der Vliet, J.B. Tuynman, A.M.E. Bruynzeel, E.D. Kerver, S. Festen, M E van Leerdam, G.L. Beets, L.G.H. Dewit, C.J.A. Punt, Pieter J. Tanis, E.D. Geijsen, P. Nieboer, W.A. Bleeker, A.J. Ten Tije, R.M.P.H. Crolla, A.C.M. van de Luijtgaarden, J.W.T. Dekker, J.M. Immink, F.J.F. Jeurissen, A.W.K.S. Marinelli, H.M. Ceha, T.C. Stam, P. Quarles an Ufford, W.H. Steup, A.L.T. Imholz, R.J.I. Bosker, J.H.M. Bekker, G.J. Creemers, G.A.P. Nieuwenhuijzen, H. van den Berg, W.M. van der Deure, R.F. Schmitz, J.M. van Rooijen, A.F.T. Olieman, A.C.M. van den Bergh, Derk Jan A. de Groot, Klaas Havenga, Jannet C. Beukema, J. de Boer, P.H.J.M. Veldman, E.J.M. Siemerink, J.W.P. Vanstiphout, B. de Valk, Q.A.J. Eijsbouts, M.B. Polée, C. Hoff, A. Slot, H.W. Kapiteijn, K.C.M.J. Peeters, F.P. Peters, P.A. Nijenhuis, S.A. Radema, H. de Wilt, P. Braam, G.J. Veldhuis, D. Hess, T. Rozema, O. Reerink, D. Ten Bokkel Huinink, A. Pronk, Janet R. Vos, M. Tascilar, G.A. Patijn, C. Kersten, O. Mjåland, M. Grønlie Guren, A.N. Nesbakken, J. Benedik, I. Edhemovic7, V. Velenik, J. Capdevila6, E. Espin, R. Salazar, S. Biondo, V. Pachón, J. die Trill, J. Aparicio, E. Garcia Granero, M.J. Safont, J.C. Bernal, A. Cervantes8, A. Espí Macías, L. Malmberg, G. Svaninger, H. Hörberg, G. Dafnis, A. Berglund, L. Österlund, K. Kovacs, J. Hol, S. Ottosson, G. Carlsson, C. Bratthäll, J. Assarsson, B.L. Lödén, P. Hede, I. Verbiené, O. Hallböök, A. Johnsson, M.L. Lydrup, K. Villmann, P. Matthiessen, J.H. Svensson, J. Haux, S. Skullman, T. Fokstuen5, Torbjörn Holm, P. Flygare, M. Walldén, B. Lindh, O. Lundberg, C. Radu, L. Påhlman, A. Piwowar, K. Smedh, U. Palenius, S. Jangmalm, P. Parinkh, H. Kim, M.L. Silviera 
TL;DR: The Rectal cancer And Preoperative Induction therapy followed by Dedicated Operation (RAPIDO) trial aimed to reduce distant metastases without compromising locoregional control.
Abstract: Summary Background Systemic relapses remain a major problem in locally advanced rectal cancer. Using short-course radiotherapy followed by chemotherapy and delayed surgery, the Rectal cancer And Preoperative Induction therapy followed by Dedicated Operation (RAPIDO) trial aimed to reduce distant metastases without compromising locoregional control. Methods In this multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial, participants were recruited from 54 centres in the Netherlands, Sweden, Spain, Slovenia, Denmark, Norway, and the USA. Patients were eligible if they were aged 18 years or older, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0–1, had a biopsy-proven, newly diagnosed, primary, locally advanced rectal adenocarcinoma, which was classified as high risk on pelvic MRI (with at least one of the following criteria: clinical tumour [cT] stage cT4a or cT4b, extramural vascular invasion, clinical nodal [cN] stage cN2, involved mesorectal fascia, or enlarged lateral lymph nodes), were mentally and physically fit for chemotherapy, and could be assessed for staging within 5 weeks before randomisation. Eligible participants were randomly assigned (1:1), using a management system with a randomly varying block design (each block size randomly chosen to contain two to four allocations), stratified by centre, ECOG performance status, cT stage, and cN stage, to either the experimental or standard of care group. All investigators remained masked for the primary endpoint until a prespecified number of events was reached. Patients allocated to the experimental treatment group received short-course radiotherapy (5 × 5 Gy over a maximum of 8 days) followed by six cycles of CAPOX chemotherapy (capecitabine 1000 mg/m2 orally twice daily on days 1–14, oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 intravenously on day 1, and a chemotherapy-free interval between days 15–21) or nine cycles of FOLFOX4 (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2 intravenously on day 1, leucovorin [folinic acid] 200 mg/m2 intravenously on days 1 and 2, followed by bolus fluorouracil 400 mg/m2 intravenously and fluorouracil 600 mg/m2 intravenously for 22 h on days 1 and 2, and a chemotherapy-free interval between days 3–14) followed by total mesorectal excision. Choice of CAPOX or FOLFOX4 was per physician discretion or hospital policy. Patients allocated to the standard of care group received 28 daily fractions of 1·8 Gy up to 50·4 Gy or 25 fractions of 2·0 Gy up to 50·0 Gy (per physician discretion or hospital policy), with concomitant twice-daily oral capecitabine 825 mg/m2 followed by total mesorectal excision and, if stipulated by hospital policy, adjuvant chemotherapy with eight cycles of CAPOX or 12 cycles of FOLFOX4. The primary endpoint was 3-year disease-related treatment failure, defined as the first occurrence of locoregional failure, distant metastasis, new primary colorectal tumour, or treatment-related death, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed by intention to treat. This study is registered with the EudraCT, 2010-023957-12, and ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT01558921 , and is now complete. Findings Between June 21, 2011, and June 2, 2016, 920 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to a treatment, of whom 912 were eligible (462 in the experimental group; 450 in the standard of care group). Median follow-up was 4·6 years (IQR 3·5–5·5). At 3 years after randomisation, the cumulative probability of disease-related treatment failure was 23·7% (95% CI 19·8–27·6) in the experimental group versus 30·4% (26·1–34·6) in the standard of care group (hazard ratio 0·75, 95% CI 0·60–0·95; p=0·019). The most common grade 3 or higher adverse event during preoperative therapy in both groups was diarrhoea (81 [18%] of 460 patients in the experimental group and 41 [9%] of 441 in the standard of care group) and neurological toxicity during adjuvant chemotherapy in the standard of care group (16 [9%] of 187 patients). Serious adverse events occurred in 177 (38%) of 460 participants in the experimental group and, in the standard of care group, in 87 (34%) of 254 patients without adjuvant chemotherapy and in 64 (34%) of 187 with adjuvant chemotherapy. Treatment-related deaths occurred in four participants in the experimental group (one cardiac arrest, one pulmonary embolism, two infectious complications) and in four participants in the standard of care group (one pulmonary embolism, one neutropenic sepsis, one aspiration, one suicide due to severe depression). Interpretation The observed decreased probability of disease-related treatment failure in the experimental group is probably indicative of the increased efficacy of preoperative chemotherapy as opposed to adjuvant chemotherapy in this setting. Therefore, the experimental treatment can be considered as a new standard of care in high-risk locally advanced rectal cancer. Funding Dutch Cancer Foundation, Swedish Cancer Society, Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness, and Spanish Clinical Research Network.

586 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors provide guidelines which can assist medical, radiation, and surgical oncologists in the practical management of this unusual cancer, which is strongly associated with human papilloma virus (HPV) infection.

274 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In an experimental arm, short-course radiotherapy with neo-adjuvant chemotherapy is combined with full-dose chemotherapy preoperatively, an alternative that offers advantages compared to concomitant chemoradiotherapy with or without postoperative chemotherapy.
Abstract: Background: Current standard for most of the locally advanced rectal cancers is preoperative chemoradiotherapy, and, variably per institution, postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy. Short-course preoperative radiation with delayed surgery has been shown to induce tumour down-staging in both randomized and observational studies. The concept of neo-adjuvant chemotherapy has been proven successful in gastric cancer, hepatic metastases from colorectal cancer and is currently tested in primary colon cancer. Methods and design: Patients with rectal cancer with high risk features for local or systemic failure on magnetic resonance imaging are randomized to either a standard arm or an experimental arm. The standard arm consists of chemoradiation (1.8 Gy x 25 or 2 Gy x 25 with capecitabine) preoperatively, followed by selective postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy. Postoperative chemotherapy is optional and may be omitted by participating institutions. The experimental arm includes short-course radiotherapy (5 Gy x 5) followed by full-dose chemotherapy (capecitabine and oxaliplatin) in 6 cycles before surgery. In the experimental arm, no postoperative chemotherapy is prescribed. Surgery is performed according to TME principles in both study arms. The hypothesis is that short-course radiotherapy with neo-adjuvant chemotherapy increases disease-free and overall survival without compromising local control. Primary end-point is disease-free survival at 3 years. Secondary endpoints include overall survival, local control, toxicity profile, and treatment completion rate, rate of pathological complete response and microscopically radical resection, and quality of life. Discussion: Following the advances in rectal cancer management, increased focus on survival rather than only on local control is now justified. In an experimental arm, short-course radiotherapy is combined with full-dose chemotherapy preoperatively, an alternative that offers advantages compared to concomitant chemoradiotherapy with or without postoperative chemotherapy. In a multi-centre setting this regimen is compared to current standard with the aim of improving survival for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer.

251 citations


Cited by
More filters
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

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: A functional classification of cell death subroutines is proposed that applies to both in vitro and in vivo settings and includes extrinsic apoptosis, caspase-dependent or -independent intrinsic programmed cell death, regulated necrosis, autophagic cell death and mitotic catastrophe.
Abstract: In 2009, the Nomenclature Committee on Cell Death (NCCD) proposed a set of recommendations for the definition of distinct cell death morphologies and for the appropriate use of cell death-related terminology, including 'apoptosis', 'necrosis' and 'mitotic catastrophe'. In view of the substantial progress in the biochemical and genetic exploration of cell death, time has come to switch from morphological to molecular definitions of cell death modalities. Here we propose a functional classification of cell death subroutines that applies to both in vitro and in vivo settings and includes extrinsic apoptosis, caspase-dependent or -independent intrinsic apoptosis, regulated necrosis, autophagic cell death and mitotic catastrophe. Moreover, we discuss the utility of expressions indicating additional cell death modalities. On the basis of the new, revised NCCD classification, cell death subroutines are defined by a series of precise, measurable biochemical features.

2,238 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: A way forward is suggested for the effective targeting of autophagy by understanding the context-dependent roles of autophile and by capitalizing on modern approaches to clinical trial design.
Abstract: Autophagy is a mechanism by which cellular material is delivered to lysosomes for degradation, leading to the basal turnover of cell components and providing energy and macromolecular precursors. Autophagy has opposing, context-dependent roles in cancer, and interventions to both stimulate and inhibit autophagy have been proposed as cancer therapies. This has led to the therapeutic targeting of autophagy in cancer to be sometimes viewed as controversial. In this Review, we suggest a way forwards for the effective targeting of autophagy by understanding the context-dependent roles of autophagy and by capitalizing on modern approaches to clinical trial design.

1,606 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This manuscript focuses on the NCCN Guidelines Panel recommendations for the workup, primary treatment, risk reduction strategies, and surveillance specific to DCIS.
Abstract: Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast represents a heterogeneous group of neoplastic lesions in the breast ducts. The goal for management of DCIS is to prevent the development of invasive breast cancer. This manuscript focuses on the NCCN Guidelines Panel recommendations for the workup, primary treatment, risk reduction strategies, and surveillance specific to DCIS.

1,545 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: It is shown that CQ mainly inhibits autophagy by impairing autophagosome fusion with lysosomes rather than by affecting the acidity and/or degradative activity of this organelle.
Abstract: Macroautophagy/autophagy is a conserved transport pathway where targeted structures are sequestered by phagophores, which mature into autophagosomes, and then delivered into lysosomes for degradati...

1,178 citations