Institution
Fourth Military Medical University
Education•Xi'an, Shaanxi, China•
About: Fourth Military Medical University is a education organization based out in Xi'an, Shaanxi, China. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Cancer & Apoptosis. The organization has 28102 authors who have published 20761 publications receiving 425572 citations.
Topics: Cancer, Apoptosis, Cell growth, Cell culture, Metastasis
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
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
••
Kindai University1, University of California, Los Angeles2, Yonsei University3, University of Bologna4, California Pacific Medical Center5, Fourth Military Medical University6, Gdańsk Medical University7, University of Bordeaux8, Hannover Medical School9, Beatson West of Scotland Cancer Centre10, Eisai11, National Taiwan University12
TL;DR: Lenvatinib was non-inferior to sorafenib in overall survival in untreated advanced hepatocellular carcinoma and the safety and tolerability profiles of lenvatinIB were consistent with those previously observed.
3,046 citations
••
University of Barcelona1, University of Bologna2, Taipei Veterans General Hospital3, Chiba University4, Pierre-and-Marie-Curie University5, University of Cambridge6, Tianjin Medical University7, University of Lorraine8, Kindai University9, National Taiwan University10, Catalan Institution for Research and Advanced Studies11, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai12, University of California, Los Angeles13, Bayer Corporation14, Bayer15, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals16, Fourth Military Medical University17
TL;DR: Regorafenib is the only systemic treatment shown to provide survival benefit in HCC patients progressing on sorafenIB treatment, and future trials should explore combinations of regorAFenib with other systemic agents and third-line treatments for patients who fail or who do not tolerate the sequence of sorafanib and regorafinib.
2,543 citations
••
TL;DR: Results suggest that the emergence of KRAS mutations is a mediator of acquired resistance to EGFR blockade and that these mutations can be detected in a non-invasive manner, which explains why solid tumours develop resistance to targeted therapies in a highly reproducible fashion.
Abstract: Colorectal tumours that are wild type for KRAS are often sensitive to EGFR blockade, but almost always develop resistance within several months of initiating therapy. The mechanisms underlying this acquired resistance to anti-EGFR antibodies are largely unknown. This situation is in marked contrast to that of small-molecule targeted agents, such as inhibitors of ABL, EGFR, BRAF and MEK, in which mutations in the genes encoding the protein targets render the tumours resistant to the effects of the drugs. The simplest hypothesis to account for the development of resistance to EGFR blockade is that rare cells with KRAS mutations pre-exist at low levels in tumours with ostensibly wild-type KRAS genes. Although this hypothesis would seem readily testable, there is no evidence in pre-clinical models to support it, nor is there data from patients. To test this hypothesis, we determined whether mutant KRAS DNA could be detected in the circulation of 28 patients receiving monotherapy with panitumumab, a therapeutic anti-EGFR antibody. We found that 9 out of 24 (38%) patients whose tumours were initially KRAS wild type developed detectable mutations in KRAS in their sera, three of which developed multiple different KRAS mutations. The appearance of these mutations was very consistent, generally occurring between 5 and 6 months following treatment. Mathematical modelling indicated that the mutations were present in expanded subclones before the initiation of panitumumab treatment. These results suggest that the emergence of KRAS mutations is a mediator of acquired resistance to EGFR blockade and that these mutations can be detected in a non-invasive manner. They explain why solid tumours develop resistance to targeted therapies in a highly reproducible fashion.
1,555 citations
Authors
Showing all 28240 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
Patrick W. Serruys | 186 | 2427 | 173210 |
Bo Wang | 119 | 2905 | 84863 |
Tao Li | 102 | 2483 | 60947 |
Liang Wang | 98 | 1718 | 45600 |
Lei Liu | 98 | 2041 | 51163 |
Franklin R. Tay | 96 | 353 | 29625 |
Gang Li | 93 | 486 | 68181 |
Wei Zhou | 93 | 1640 | 39772 |
Songtao Shi | 92 | 265 | 42958 |
Qian Liu | 90 | 610 | 33341 |
Zigang Dong | 90 | 553 | 27370 |
Xia Li | 85 | 1121 | 30293 |
Jie Tian | 83 | 1238 | 31825 |
Jian Wu | 82 | 871 | 39968 |
Min Zhuo | 79 | 301 | 22090 |