Éditeur(s) : HAL CCSD Wiley
Résumé : International audience
TMPRSS2/ERG fusion resulting in ERG overexpression occurs in 30 to 50% of prostate cancer (PCa) in Caucasian patients, but its prognostic relevance remains controversial. In the present study, we investigated ERG expression in all stages of PCa progression, and evaluated the prognostic impact of ERG status in clinically localized PCa (CLC) and in castration resistant disease (CRPC). ERG and AR expressions were evaluated by immunohistochemistry on tissue microarrays containing samples of high grade PIN (n = 57), CLC surgically treated (n = 299, including 185 Caucasians and 114 African-Caribbeans), metastases (n = 17), and CRPC (n = 41). In Caucasians, ERG expression significantly increased from high grade PIN (17.5%) to pT2 (27%) and pT3 CLC (43%), then to metastases (53%). In CLC, stainings for ERG and AR were correlated, and ERG expression was less frequent in African-Caribbeans compared to Caucasians (11.5% vs. 33%). In Caucasians CLC, ERG was associated with longer recurrence free survival, after adjusting for classical prognostic markers. In CRPC, ERG was expressed in 29% of cases, and was associated with a longer overall survival. Our results confirm that ERG expression is less frequent in PCa from patients of African descent. Although ERG expression increases during PCa natural history, positive ERG status is associated with better outcome in both CLC and CRPC. This paradox could be explained in part by the fact that ERG expression is AR dependant, then ERG positive cancers are likely to progress in a rich androgen environment, with a better response to androgen suppression.
ISSN: 0270-4137

hal-01118555
https://hal-univ-rennes1.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01118555
DOI : 10.1002/pros.22863
PUBMED : 25175352

Éditeur(s) : HAL CCSD Landes Bioscience
Résumé : International audience
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

hal-00735751
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00735751
PUBMED : 22966490