H odgkin's Disease

Abstract

The Ann Arbor staging classification remains the basis for the evaluation of patients with Hodgkin's disease. The Ann Arbor classification has been adopted by the American Joint Committe on Cancer (AJCC) and International Union Against Cancer (UICC) as the recommended staging classification for Hodgkin's disease. It is evident, though, that this staging cannot be relied on as the only prognostic tool in Hodgkin's disease. A modification of the Ann Arbor system was proposed at the Cotswold meeting to incorporate a designation for number of sites and bulk. These recommendations have not been universally adopted, however, and a multitude of other factors and combinations of factors are currently being employed worldwide. The anatomic extent of disease is the most important prognostic factor in Hodgkin's disease and forms the baseline for decision making regarding treatment. Because of this, the prognostic factors will be considered in the context of stage.

Protein and Proteome Measurements with Microfluidic Chips

“…Single-cell proteomic assays have been generally pursued by alternative technologies including mass cytometry, immunoas-saying, barcoding with miniaturized antibody arrays, electrophoresis/Western blotting, and droplet microfluidics. [74][75][76][77] Nevertheless, while beyond the purpose of this Review, it is worth mentioning that a variety of elaborate approaches that allow for the large-scale measurement of protein expression in single cells have been devised, but the advances relied on either the sophistication of genetic tools for incorporating reporters into genes that generate fluorescently tagged proteins 78,79 or the use of single-cell barcode chips that have been developed in earlier years. 80,81 Several notable accomplishments that involved the use of microarray or microfluidic platforms revolved around detecting and/or quantifying the expression of one protein or a limited number of proteins, by using, again, rather simple antibody capture assays.…”

Optimizing Accuracy and Depth of Protein Quantification in Experiments Using Isobaric Carriers

“…1,2 However, MS analysis of smaller samples, such as single cells, is more challenging because the ions analyzed by the MS detectors may be insufficient for accurate quantification and sequence identification. [3][4][5][6][7][8] To mitigate these challenges, we introduced the isobaric carrier concept as a part of Single Cell ProtEomics by MS (SCoPE-MS), 9,10 and the concept has been used by multiple laboratories as recently reviewed. 11 The isobaric carrier approach employs tandem mass tags to label small samples of interest (e.g., proteomes of single cells) and a carrier sample (e.g., the proteome of 100 cells) and then combines all labeled samples to be analyzed together by tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS), as illustrated in Figure 1.…”

“…15 Other applications, such as building biophysical models, demand accurate quantification and require sampling a larger number of copies per gene. 4,6,16 MS approaches for single-cell analysis have already demonstrated the ability to sample 20-fold more copies per gene compared to established single-cell RNA-seq methods. 17 Sampling many copies per gene is challenging and often comes at the cost of decreased throughput for both single-cell RNA-seq 14,15 and MS analysis.…”

“…17 Sampling many copies per gene is challenging and often comes at the cost of decreased throughput for both single-cell RNA-seq 14,15 and MS analysis. 4,17 Thus, experimental designs should take into account the costs and benefits of each analytical strategy and choose whether to emphasize throughput or quantitative accuracy. This optimization has already been discussed, 4,12,17 but the trade-offs of varying the number of cells in the isobaric carriers remain incompletely characterized.…”

“…4,17 Thus, experimental designs should take into account the costs and benefits of each analytical strategy and choose whether to emphasize throughput or quantitative accuracy. This optimization has already been discussed, 4,12,17 but the trade-offs of varying the number of cells in the isobaric carriers remain incompletely characterized. Here, we sought to empirically characterize these trade-offs and use the data to provide recommendations for experimental designs.…”