Genome-wide DNA profiling of marginal zone lymphomas identifies subtype-specific lesions with an impact on the clinical outcome

Marginal zone B-cell lymphomas (MZLs) have been divided into 3 distinct subtypes (extranodal MZLs of mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue [MALT] type, nodal MZLs, and splenic MZLs). Nevertheless, the relationship between the subtypes is still unclear. We performed a comprehensive analysis of genomic DNA copy number changes in a very large series of MZL cases with the aim of addressing this question. Samples from 218 MZL patients (25 nodal, 57 MALT, 134 splenic, and 2 not better specified MZLs) were analyzed with the Affymetrix Human Mapping 250K SNP arrays, and the data combined with matched gene expression in 33 of 218 cases. MALT lymphoma presented significantly more frequently gains at 3p, 6p, 18p, and del(6q23) (TNFAIP3/A20), whereas splenic MZLs was associated with del(7q31), del(8p). Nodal MZLs did not show statistically significant differences compared with MALT lymphoma while lacking the splenic MZLs-related 7q losses. Gains of 3q and 18q were common to all 3 subtypes. del(8p) was often present together with del(17p) (TP53). Although del(17p) did not determine a worse outcome and del(8p) was only of borderline significance, the presence of both deletions had a highly significant negative impact on the outcome of splenic MZLs.

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.