References of "Agostinis, Patrizia"
     in
Bookmark and Share    
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailPhosphoprotein patterns predict trametinib responsiveness and optimal trametinib sensitisation strategies in melanoma.
Rozanc, Jan; Sakellaropoulos, Theodore; Antoranz, Asier et al

in Cell death and differentiation (2018)

Malignant melanoma is a highly aggressive form of skin cancer responsible for the majority of skin cancer-related deaths. Recent insight into the heterogeneous nature of melanoma suggests more ... [more ▼]

Malignant melanoma is a highly aggressive form of skin cancer responsible for the majority of skin cancer-related deaths. Recent insight into the heterogeneous nature of melanoma suggests more personalised treatments may be necessary to overcome drug resistance and improve patient care. To this end, reliable molecular signatures that can accurately predict treatment responsiveness need to be identified. In this study, we applied multiplex phosphoproteomic profiling across a panel of 24 melanoma cell lines with different disease-relevant mutations, to predict responsiveness to MEK inhibitor trametinib. Supported by multivariate statistical analysis and multidimensional pattern recognition algorithms, the responsiveness of individual cell lines to trametinib could be predicted with high accuracy (83% correct predictions), independent of mutation status. We also successfully employed this approach to case specifically predict whether individual melanoma cell lines could be sensitised to trametinib. Our predictions identified that combining MEK inhibition with selective targeting of c-JUN and/or FAK, using siRNA-based depletion or pharmacological inhibitors, sensitised resistant cell lines and significantly enhanced treatment efficacy. Our study indicates that multiplex proteomic analyses coupled with pattern recognition approaches could assist in personalising trametinib-based treatment decisions in the future. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 100 (9 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailGuidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy.
Klionsky, Daniel J.; Abdalla, Fabio C.; Abeliovich, Hagai et al

in Autophagy (2012), 8(4), 445-544

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 ... [more ▼]

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. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 593 (49 UL)