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

Drug resistance develops in nearly all patients with colon cancer, leading to a decrease in the therapeutic efficacies of anticancer agents. This review provides an up-to-date summary on over-expression of ATP-binding cassette (ABC) transporters and evasion of apoptosis, two representatives of transport-based and non-transport-based mechanisms of drug resistance, as well as their therapeutic strategies. Different ABC transporters were found to be up-regulated in colon cancer, which can facilitate the efflux of anticancer drugs out of cancer cells and decrease their therapeutic effects. Inhibition of ABC transporters by suppressing their protein expressions or co-administration of modulators has been proven as an effective approach to sensitize drug-resistant cancer cells to anticancer drugs in vitro. On the other hand, evasion of apoptosis observed in drug-resistant cancers also results in drug resistance to anticancer agents, especially to apoptosis inducers. Restoration of apoptotic signals by BH3 mimetics or epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors and inhibition of cancer cell growth by alternative cell death pathways, such as autophagy, are effective means to treat such resistant cancer types. Given that the drug resistance mechanisms are different among colon cancer patients and may change even in a single patient at different stages, personalized and specific combination therapy is proposed to be more effective and safer for the reversal of drug resistance in clinics.

β-Adrenoceptors are broadly distributed in various tissues of the body. Stress hormones regulate a panel of important physiological functions and disease states including cancer. Nicotine and its derivatives could stimulate the release of stress hormones from cancer cells, leading to the promotion of cancer development. β-Blockers have been widely used to control hypertension for decades. Recently, these agents could have significant implications in cancer therapy through blockade of adrenoceptors in tumour tissues. In this review, we summarize recent advancements about the influence of stress hormones, nicotine and β-adrenoceptors on cancer cell proliferation, apoptosis, invasion and metastasis, and also tumour vasculature normalization. Relevant signal pathways and potential value of β-blockers in the treatment of cancer are also discussed in this review.

BACKGROUND: Gene expression can be posttranscriptionally regulated by a complex network of proteins. N1-methyladenosine (m1A) is a newly validated RNA modification. However, little is known about both its influence and biogenesis in tumor development. METHODS: This study analyzed TCGA data of patients with five kinds of gastrointestinal (GI) cancers. Using data from cBioPortal, molecular features of the nine known m1A-related enzymes in GI cancers were investigated. Using a variety of bioinformatics approach, the impact of m1A regulators on its downstream signaling pathway was studied. To further confirm this regulation, the effect of m1A writer ALKBH3 knockdown was studied using RNA-seq data from published database. RESULTS: Dysregulation and multiple types of genetic alteration of putative m1A-related enzymes in tumor samples were observed. The ErbB and mTOR pathways with ErbB2, mTOR, and AKT1S1 hub genes were identified as being regulated by m1A-related enzymes. The expression of both ErbB2 and AKT1S1 was decreased after m1A writer ALKBH3 knockdown. Furthermore, Gene Ontology analysis revealed that m1A downstream genes were associated with cell proliferation, and the results showed that m1A genes are reliably linked to mTOR. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated for the first time the dysregulation of m1A regulators in GI cancer and its signaling pathways and will contribute to the understanding of RNA modification in cancer.

No abstract