Author
R De Maria
Other affiliations: Sapienza University of Rome, University of Rome Tor Vergata, University of Palermo ...read more
Bio: R De Maria is an academic researcher from Catholic University of the Sacred Heart. The author has contributed to research in topics: Cancer stem cell & Cancer. The author has an hindex of 42, co-authored 79 publications receiving 10587 citations. Previous affiliations of R De Maria include Sapienza University of Rome & University of Rome Tor Vergata.
Topics: Cancer stem cell, Cancer, Apoptosis, Stem cell, Receptor
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
Institut Gustave Roussy1, French Institute of Health and Medical Research2, University of Paris-Sud3, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai4, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center5, Thomas Jefferson University6, McMaster University7, University of Massachusetts Medical School8, LSU Health Sciences Center New Orleans9, Roswell Park Cancer Institute10, University of Gothenburg11, Boston Children's Hospital12, University of Freiburg13, University of California, San Francisco14, Buck Institute for Research on Aging15, Centre national de la recherche scientifique16, National Institutes of Health17, Technion – Israel Institute of Technology18, University of Leicester19, University of Chieti-Pescara20, Istituto Superiore di Sanità21, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill22, New York University23, University of Pennsylvania24, Howard Hughes Medical Institute25, Yale University26, University of Ulm27, University of Burgundy28, Aix-Marseille University29, Pasteur Institute30, University of Strasbourg31, Johns Hopkins University32, University of Zurich33, University of Tokyo34, Weizmann Institute of Science35, University of Michigan36, University College London37, Duke University38, University of Graz39, Ghent University40, Trinity College, Dublin41, University of Amsterdam42, University of Lyon43, University of Rome Tor Vergata44, University of Göttingen45, Stony Brook University46, Kyoto University47, Merck & Co.48, Austrian Academy of Sciences49, National University of Singapore50, University of Chicago51, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland52, La Trobe University53, University of Buenos Aires54, University of Padua55, University of Lisbon56, University of Cambridge57, University of Würzburg58, University of Geneva59, University of Bern60, Rockefeller University61, University of Lausanne62, Osaka University63, University of California, San Diego64, University of Glasgow65, Harvard University66, Karolinska Institutet67
TL;DR: A nonexhaustive comparison of methods to detect cell death with apoptotic or nonapoptotic morphologies, their advantages and pitfalls is provided and the importance of performing multiple, methodologically unrelated assays to quantify dying and dead cells is emphasized.
Abstract: Cell death is essential for a plethora of physiological processes, and its deregulation characterizes numerous human diseases Thus, the in-depth investigation of cell death and its mechanisms constitutes a formidable challenge for fundamental and applied biomedical research, and has tremendous implications for the development of novel therapeutic strategies It is, therefore, of utmost importance to standardize the experimental procedures that identify dying and dead cells in cell cultures and/or in tissues, from model organisms and/or humans, in healthy and/or pathological scenarios Thus far, dozens of methods have been proposed to quantify cell death-related parameters However, no guidelines exist regarding their use and interpretation, and nobody has thoroughly annotated the experimental settings for which each of these techniques is most appropriate Here, we provide a nonexhaustive comparison of methods to detect cell death with apoptotic or nonapoptotic morphologies, their advantages and pitfalls These guidelines are intended for investigators who study cell death, as well as for reviewers who need to constructively critique scientific reports that deal with cellular demise Given the difficulties in determining the exact number of cells that have passed the point-of-no-return of the signaling cascades leading to cell death, we emphasize the importance of performing multiple, methodologically unrelated assays to quantify dying and dead cells
2,218 citations
TL;DR: Lung cancer contains a rare population of CD133+ cancer stem-like cells able to self-renew and generates an unlimited progeny of non-tumorigenic cells, which may provide valuable information to be exploited in the clinical setting.
Abstract: Lung carcinoma is often incurable and remains the leading cancer killer in both men and women. Recent evidence indicates that tumors contain a small population of cancer stem cells that are responsible for tumor maintenance and spreading. The identification of the tumorigenic population that sustains lung cancer may contribute significantly to the development of effective therapies. Here, we found that the tumorigenic cells in small cell and non-small cell lung cancer are a rare population of undifferentiated cells expressing CD133, an antigen present in the cell membrane of normal and cancer-primitive cells of the hematopoietic, neural, endothelial and epithelial lineages. Lung cancer CD133(+) cells were able to grow indefinitely as tumor spheres in serum-free medium containing epidermal growth factor and basic fibroblast growth factor. The injection of 10(4) lung cancer CD133(+) cells in immunocompromised mice readily generated tumor xenografts phenotypically identical to the original tumor. Upon differentiation, lung cancer CD133(+) cells acquired the specific lineage markers, while loosing the tumorigenic potential together with CD133 expression. Thus, lung cancer contains a rare population of CD133(+) cancer stem-like cells able to self-renew and generates an unlimited progeny of non-tumorigenic cells. Molecular and functional characterization of such a tumorigenic population may provide valuable information to be exploited in the clinical setting.
1,648 citations
Paris Descartes University1, Institut Gustave Roussy2, Mount Sinai Hospital3, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center4, University of Kiel5, Thomas Jefferson University6, Seconda Università degli Studi di Napoli7, University of Toronto8, University of Massachusetts Medical School9, Louisiana State University10, Ghent University11, Flanders Institute for Biotechnology12, Queen Mary University of London13, Cancer Research UK14, Roswell Park Cancer Institute15, Karolinska Institutet16, University of Freiburg17, University of California, San Francisco18, Buck Institute for Research on Aging19, French Institute of Health and Medical Research20, Université Paris-Saclay21, University College London22, University of Rome Tor Vergata23, Northwestern University24, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center25, National Institutes of Health26, Technion – Israel Institute of Technology27, Johns Hopkins University28, University of Chieti-Pescara29, University of Ulm30, Genentech31, New York University32, Pennsylvania State University33, University of Salento34, Yale University35, Goethe University Frankfurt36, University of Burgundy37, Pasteur Institute38, University of Strasbourg39, University of Zurich40, University of Tokyo41, Technische Universität München42, University of Bern43, University of Michigan44, Medical Research Council45, University of Adelaide46, University of South Australia47, Medical University of South Carolina48, Howard Hughes Medical Institute49, University of Texas at Dallas50, St. John's University51, University of Oviedo52, University of Graz53, Istituto Superiore di Sanità54, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven55, Trinity College, Dublin56, University of Geneva57, University of Amsterdam58, Stony Brook University59, University of Washington60, University of Ferrara61, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland62, La Trobe University63, University of Buenos Aires64, University of Virginia65, University of Padua66, University of Lisbon67, University of Cambridge68, University of Würzburg69, Soochow University (Suzhou)70, Columbia University71, University of Glasgow72, Foundation for Research & Technology – Hellas73, University of Crete74, Innsbruck Medical University75, Carlos III Health Institute76, Rutgers University77, University of Minnesota78, Harvard University79, City University of New York80, Moscow State University81
TL;DR: The Nomenclature Committee on Cell Death formulates a set of recommendations to help scientists and researchers to discriminate between essential and accessory aspects of cell death.
Abstract: Cells exposed to extreme physicochemical or mechanical stimuli die in an uncontrollable manner, as a result of their immediate structural breakdown. Such an unavoidable variant of cellular demise is generally referred to as ‘accidental cell death’ (ACD). In most settings, however, cell death is initiated by a genetically encoded apparatus, correlating with the fact that its course can be altered by pharmacologic or genetic interventions. ‘Regulated cell death’ (RCD) can occur as part of physiologic programs or can be activated once adaptive responses to perturbations of the extracellular or intracellular microenvironment fail. The biochemical phenomena that accompany RCD may be harnessed to classify it into a few subtypes, which often (but not always) exhibit stereotyped morphologic features. Nonetheless, efficiently inhibiting the processes that are commonly thought to cause RCD, such as the activation of executioner caspases in the course of apoptosis, does not exert true cytoprotective effects in the mammalian system, but simply alters the kinetics of cellular demise as it shifts its morphologic and biochemical correlates. Conversely, bona fide cytoprotection can be achieved by inhibiting the transduction of lethal signals in the early phases of the process, when adaptive responses are still operational. Thus, the mechanisms that truly execute RCD may be less understood, less inhibitable and perhaps more homogeneous than previously thought. Here, the Nomenclature Committee on Cell Death formulates a set of recommendations to help scientists and researchers to discriminate between essential and accessory aspects of cell death.
809 citations
598 citations
TL;DR: Data indicate that CD95 cross-linking induces SM breakdown and ceramide production through an acidic SMase, thus providing the first information regarding early signal generation from CD95, and may be relevant in defining the biochemical nature of intracellular messengers leading to apoptotic cell death.
Abstract: Intracellular pathways leading from membrane receptor engagement to apoptotic cell death are still poorly characterized We investigated the intracellular signaling generated after cross-linking of CD95 (Fas/Apo-1 antigen), a broadly expressed cell surface receptor whose engagement results in triggering of cellular apoptotic programs DX2, a new functional anti-CD95 monoclonal antibody was produced by immunizing mice with human CD95-transfected L cells Crosslinking of CD95 with DX2 resulted in the activation of a sphingomyelinase (SMase) in promyelocytic U937 cells, as well as in other human tumor cell lines and in CD95-transfected murine cells, as demonstrated by induction of in vivo sphingomyelin (SM) hydrolysis and generation of ceramide Direct in vitro measurement of enzymatic activity within CD95-stimulated U937 cell extracts, using labeled SM vesicles as substrates, showed strong SMase activity, which required pH 50 for optimal substrate hydrolysis Finally, all CD95-sensitive cell lines tested could be induced to undergo apoptosis after exposure to cell-permeant C2-ceramide These data indicate that CD95 cross-linking induces SM breakdown and ceramide production through an acidic SMase, thus providing the first information regarding early signal generation from CD95, and may be relevant in defining the biochemical nature of intracellular messengers leading to apoptotic cell death
595 citations
Cited by
More filters
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
Daniel J. Klionsky1, Fábio Camargo Abdalla2, Hagai Abeliovich3, Robert T. Abraham4 +1284 more•Institutions (463)
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
[...]
TL;DR: Fas ligand (FasL), a cell surface molecule belonging to the tumor necrosis factor family, binds to its receptor Fas, thus inducing apoptosis of Fas-bearing cells.
Abstract: Fas ligand (FasL), a cell surface molecule belonging to the tumor necrosis factor family, binds to its receptor Fas, thus inducing apoptosis of Fas-bearing cells. Various cells express Fas, whereas FasL is expressed predominantly in activated T cells. In the immune system, Fas and FasL are involved in down-regulation of immune reactions as well as in T cell-mediated cytotoxicity. Malfunction of the Fas system causes lymphoproliferative disorders and accelerates autoimmune diseases, whereas its exacerbation may cause tissue destruction.
4,190 citations
Columbia University1, University of Pittsburgh2, Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health3, Stanford University4, German Cancer Research Center5, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich6, Yale University7, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center8, Dresden University of Technology9, Wistar Institute10, National University of Mar del Plata11, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio12, Guangzhou Medical University13, University of Connecticut Health Center14, Nagoya University15, New York University16, University of Arizona17
TL;DR: The mechanisms underlying ferroptosis are reviewed, connections to other areas of biology and medicine are highlighted, and tools and guidelines for studying this emerging form of regulated cell death are recommended.
3,356 citations
Lorenzo Galluzzi1, Lorenzo Galluzzi2, Ilio Vitale3, Stuart A. Aaronson4 +183 more•Institutions (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