Losses of chromosome arms 4q, 8p, 13q and gain of 8q are correlated with increasing chromosomal instability in hepatocellular carcinoma

OBJECTIVE: Chromosomal instability is a key feature in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) revealed recurring structural aberrations, whereas fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) indicated an increasing number of numerical aberrations in dedifferentiating HCC. Therefore, we examined whether there was a correlation between structural and numerical aberrations of chromosomal instability in HCC. METHODS AND RESULTS: 27 HCC (5 well, 10 moderately, 12 lower differentiated) already cytogenetically characterized by aCGH were analyzed. FISH analysis using probes for chromosomes 1, 3, 7, 8 and 17 revealed 1.46-4.24 signals/nucleus, which correlated with the histological grade (well vs. moderately,p < 0.0003; moderately vs. lower, p < 0.004). The number of chromosomes to each other was stable with exceptions only seen for chromosome 8. Loss of 4q and 13q, respectively, were correlated with the number of aberrations detected by aCGH (p < 0.001, p < 0.005; Mann-Whitney test). Loss of 4q and gain of 8q were correlated with an increasing number of numerical aberrations detected by FISH (p < 0.020, p < 0.031). Loss of 8p was correlated with the number of structural imbalances seen in aCGH (p < 0.048), but not with the number of numerical changes seen in FISH. CONCLUSION: We found that losses of 4q, 8p and 13q were closely correlated with an increasing number of aberrations detected by aCGH, whereas a loss of 4q and a gain of 8q were also observed in the context of polyploidization, the cytogenetic correlate of morphological dedifferentiation.

Eosinophilic esophagitis: analysis of food impaction and perforation in 251 adolescent and adult patients

BACKGROUND ; AIMS: Eosinophilic esophagitis is a rapidly emerging, chronic inflammatory disorder. Prolonged inflammation evokes structural alterations and a fragile esophageal wall prone to perforation/rupture and food impaction. This report assesses the risk of spontaneously arising and procedure-induced complications and proposes practical recommendations. METHODS: The Swiss Esophageal Esophagitis Database documented 251 confirmed cases. A chart review identified which patients had required endoscopic bolus removal and/or experienced transmural esophageal perforation/rupture. In addition, a MEDLINE search for "eosinophilic esophagitis" with "esophageal perforation" or "esophageal rupture" was undertaken. RESULTS: During an 18-year period, 87 patients (34.7%) experienced 134 food impactions requiring flexible (124, 92.5%) or rigid (10, 7.5%) endoscopic bolus removal. Transmural perforation occurred in 20% (2/10) of rigid procedures, and 1 esophageal rupture (Boerhaave's syndrome) was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Bolus removal by rigid endoscopy is a high-risk procedure and should be avoided in eosinophilic esophagitis patients who require a gentler approach. Whether food impaction and esophageal wall remodeling can be prevented with anti-inflammatory medication is still undetermined. All Boerhaave's syndrome cases should be evaluated for underlying eosinophilic esophagitis.

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy in higher eukaryotes

Research in autophagy continues to accelerate,(1) and as a result many new scientists are entering the field. Accordingly, it is important to establish a standard set of criteria for monitoring macroautophagy in different organisms. Recent reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose.(2,3) There are many useful and convenient methods that can be used to monitor macroautophagy in yeast, but relatively few in other model systems, and there is much confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure macroautophagy in higher eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers of autophagosomes versus those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway; thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from fully functional autophagy that includes delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of the methods that can be used by investigators who are attempting to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as by reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that investigate these processes. This set of guidelines is 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 verify an autophagic response.