Characterization of E2F1's oncogenic, apoptotic and tumor-suppressive activities utilizing the K5 mouse model

Though E2F1 is deregulated in most human cancers by mutations of the p16-cyclin D-Rb pathway, it also exhibits tumor suppressive activity. A transgenic mouse model overexpressing E2F1 under the control of the bovine keratin 5 (K5) promoter exhibits epidermal hyperplasia and spontaneously develops tumors in the skin and other epithelial tissues after one year of age. In a p53-deficient background, aberrant apoptosis in K5 E2F1 transgenic epidermis is reduced and tumorigenesis is accelerated. In sharp contrast, K5 E2F1 transgenic mice are resistant to papilloma formation in the DMBA/TPA two-stage carcinogenesis protocol. K5 E2F4 and K5 DP1 transgenic mice were also characterized and both display epidermal hyperplasia but do not develop spontaneous tumors even in cooperation with p53 deficiency. These transgenic mice do not have increased levels of apoptosis in their skin and are more susceptible to papilloma formation in the two-stage carcinogenesis model. These studies show that deregulated proliferation does not necessarily lead to tumor formation and that the ability to suppress skin carcinogenesis is unique to E2F1. E2F1 can also suppress skin carcinogenesis when okadaic acid is used as the tumor promoter and when a pre-initiated mouse model is used, demonstrating that E2F1's tumor suppressive activity is not specific for TPA and occurs at the promotion stage. E2F1 was thought to induce p53-dependent apoptosis through upregulation of p19ARF tumor suppressor, which inhibits mdm2-mediated p53 degradation. Consistent with in vitro studies, the overexpression of E2F1 in mouse skin results in the transcriptional activation of the p19ARF and the accumulation of p53. Inactivation of either p19ARF or p53 restores the sensitivity of K5 E2F1 transgenic mice to DMBA/TPA carcinogenesis, demonstrating that an intact p19ARF-p53 pathway is necessary for E2F1 to suppress carcinogenesis. Surprisingly, while p53 is required for E2F1 to induce apoptosis in mouse skin, p19ARF is not, and inactivation of p19ARF actually enhances E2F1-induced apoptosis and proliferation in transgenic epidermis. This indicates that ARF is important for E2F1-induced tumor suppression but not apoptosis. Senescence is another potential mechanism of tumor suppression that involves p53 and p19ARF. K5 E2F1 transgenic mice initiated with DMBA and treated with TPA show an increased number of senescence cells in their epidermis. These experiments demonstrate that E2F1's unique tumor suppressive activity in two-stage skin carcinogenesis can be genetically separated from E2F1-induced apoptosis and suggest that senescence utilizing the p19ARF-p53 pathway plays a role in tumor suppression by E2F1. ^

Federally regulated institutional review boards: The aspects of a "model" IRB---Is the current system in need of a tune up or complete overhaul?

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) are the primary gatekeepers for the protection of ethical standards of federally regulated research on human subjects in this country. This paper focuses on what general, broad measures that may be instituted or enhanced to exemplify a "model IRB". This is done by examining the current regulatory standards of federally regulated IRBs, not private or commercial boards, and how many of those standards have been found either inadequate or not generally understood or followed. The analysis includes suggestions on how to bring about changes in order to make the IRB process more efficient, less subject to litigation, and create standardized educational protocols for members. The paper also considers how to include better oversight for multi-center research, increased centralization of IRBs, utilization of Data Safety Monitoring Boards when necessary, payment for research protocol review, voluntary accreditation, and the institution of evaluation/quality assurance programs. ^ This is a policy study utilizing secondary analysis of publicly available data. Therefore, the research for this paper focuses on scholarly medical/legal journals, web information from the Department of Health and Human Services, Federal Drug Administration, and the Office of the Inspector General, Accreditation Programs, law review articles, and current regulations applicable to the relevant portions of the paper. ^ Two issues are found to be consistently cited by the literature as major concerns. One is a need for basic, standardized educational requirements across all IRBs and its members, and secondly, much stricter and more informed management of continuing research. There is no federally regulated formal education system currently in place for IRB members, except for certain NIH-based trials. Also, IRBs are not keeping up with research once a study has begun, and although regulated to do so, it does not appear to be a great priority. This is the area most in danger of increased litigation. Other issues such as voluntary accreditation and outcomes evaluation are slowing gaining steam as the processes are becoming more available and more sought after, such as JCAHO accrediting of hospitals. ^ Adopting the principles discussed in this paper should promote better use of a local IRBs time, money, and expertise for protecting the vulnerable population in their care. Without further improvements to the system, there is concern that private and commercial IRBs will attempt to create a monopoly on much of the clinical research in the future as they are not as heavily regulated and can therefore offer companies quicker and more convenient reviews. IRBs need to consider the advantages of charging for their unique and important services as a cost of doing business. More importantly, there must be a minimum standard of education for all IRB members in the area of the ethical standards of human research and a greater emphasis placed on the follow-up of ongoing research as this is the most critical time for study participants and may soon lead to the largest area for litigation. Additionally, there should be a centralized IRB for multi-site trials or a study website with important information affecting the trial in real time. There needs to be development of standards and metrics to assess the performance of the IRBs for quality assurance and outcome evaluations. The boards should not be content to run the business of human subjects' research without determining how well that function is actually being carried out. It is important that federally regulated IRBs provide excellence in human research and promote those values most important to the public at large.^

Evaluation of PRESAGE® dosimeters for brachytherapy sources and the 3D dosimetry and characterization of the new AgX100 125I seed model

With continuous new improvements in brachytherapy source designs and techniques, method of 3D dosimetry for treatment dose verifications would better ensure accurate patient radiotherapy treatment. This study was aimed to first evaluate the 3D dose distributions of the low-dose rate (LDR) Amersham 6711 OncoseedTM using PRESAGE® dosimeters to establish PRESAGE® as a suitable brachytherapy dosimeter. The new AgX100 125I seed model (Theragenics Corporation) was then characterized using PRESAGE® following the TG-43 protocol. PRESAGE® dosimeters are solid, polyurethane-based, 3D dosimeters doped with radiochromic leuco dyes that produce a linear optical density response to radiation dose. For this project, the radiochromic response in PRESAGE® was captured using optical-CT scanning (632 nm) and the final 3D dose matrix was reconstructed using the MATLAB software. An Amersham 6711 seed with an air-kerma strength of approximately 9 U was used to irradiate two dosimeters to 2 Gy and 11 Gy at 1 cm to evaluate dose rates in the r=1 cm to r=5 cm region. The dosimetry parameters were compared to the values published in the updated AAPM Report No. 51 (TG-43U1). An AgX100 seed with an air-kerma strength of about 6 U was used to irradiate two dosimeters to 3.6 Gy and 12.5 Gy at 1 cm. The dosimetry parameters for the AgX100 were compared to the values measured from previous Monte-Carlo and experimental studies. In general, the measured dose rate constant, anisotropy function, and radial dose function for the Amersham 6711 showed agreements better than 5% compared to consensus values in the r=1 to r=3 cm region. The dose rates and radial dose functions measured for the AgX100 agreed with the MCNPX and TLD-measured values within 3% in the r=1 to r=3 cm region. The measured anisotropy function in PRESAGE® showed relative differences of up to 9% with the MCNPX calculated values. It was determined that post-irradiation optical density change over several days was non-linear in different dose regions, and therefore the dose values in the r=4 to r=5 cm regions had higher uncertainty due to this effect. This study demonstrated that within the radial distance of 3 cm, brachytherapy dosimetry in PRESAGE® can be accurate within 5% as long as irradiation times are within 48 hours.