Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy.

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.

Breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma: two distinct clinicopathological variants with different outcomes.

BACKGROUND: ALK-negative anaplastic large cell lymphoma associated with breast implant (i-ALCL) has been recently recognized as a distinct entity. Among 43 830 lymphomas registered in the French Lymphopath network since 2010, 300 breast lymphomas comprising 25 peripheral T-cell lymphomas (PTCL) were reviewed. Among PTCL, ALK-negative ALCL was the most frequent and all of them were associated with breast implants. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Since 2010, all i-ALCL cases were collected from different institutions through Lymphopath. Immuno-morphologic features, molecular data and clinical outcome of 19 i-ALCLs have been retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS: The median age of the patients was 61 years and the median length between breast implant and i-ALCL was 9 years. Most implants were silicone-filled and textured. Implant removal was performed in 17 out of 19 patients with additional treatment based on mostly CHOP or CHOP-like chemotherapy regimens (n = 10/19) or irradiation (n = 1/19). CHOP alone or ABVD following radiation without implant removal have been given in two patients. The two clinical presentations, i.e. effusion and less frequently tumor mass correlated with distinct histopathologic features: in situ i-ALCL (anaplastic cell proliferation confined to the fibrous capsule) and infiltrative i-ALCL (pleomorphic cells massively infiltrating adjacent tissue with eosinophils and sometimes Reed-Sternberg-like cells mimicking Hodgkin lymphoma). Malignant cells were CD30-positive, showed a variable staining for EMA and were ALK negative. Most cases had a cytotoxic T-cell immunophenotype with variable T-cell antigen loss and pSTAT3 nuclear expression. T-cell receptor genes were clonally rearranged in 13 out of 13 tested cases. After 18 months of median follow-up, the 2-year overall survival for in situ and infiltrative i-ALCL was 100% and 52.5%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In situ i-ALCLs have an indolent clinical course and generally remain free of disease after implant removal. However, infiltrative i-ALCLs could have a more aggressive clinical course that might require additional therapy to implant removal.