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

AbstractThe International Prognostic Scoring Sytem (IPSS) is an important standard for ssessing prognosis of primary untreated adult patients with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS). To refine the IPSS, MDS patient databases from international institutions were coalesced to assemble a much larger combined database (Revised-IPSS [IPSS-R], n = 7012, IPSS, n = 816) for analysis. Multiple statistically weighted clinical features were used to generate a prognostic categorization model. Bone marrow cytogenetics, marrow blast percentage, and cytopenias remained the basis of the new system. Novel components of the current analysis included: 5 rather than 3 cytogenetic prognostic subgroups with specific and new classifications of a number of less common cytogenetic subsets, splitting the low marrow blast percentage value, and depth of cytopenias. This model defined 5 rather than the 4 major prognostic categories that are present in the IPSS. Patient age, performance status, serum ferritin, and lactate dehydrogenase were significant additive features for survival but not for acute myeloid leukemia transformation. This system comprehensively integrated the numerous known clinical features into a method analyzing MDS patient prognosis more precisely than the initial IPSS. As such, this IPSS-R should prove beneficial for predicting the clinical outcomes of untreated MDS patients and aiding design and analysis of clinical trials in this disease.

BACKGROUND Myelodysplastic syndromes are clinically heterogeneous disorders characterized by clonal hematopoiesis, impaired differentiation, peripheral-blood cytopenias, and a risk of progression to acute myeloid leukemia. Somatic mutations may influence the clinical phenotype but are not included in current prognostic scoring systems. METHODS We used a combination of genomic approaches, including next-generation sequencing and mass spectrometry–based genotyping, to identify mutations in samples of bone marrow aspirate from 439 patients with myelodysplastic syndromes. We then examined whether the mutation status for each gene was associated with clinical variables, including specific cytopenias, the proportion of blasts, and overall survival. RESULTS We identified somatic mutations in 18 genes, including two, ETV6 and GNAS, that have not been reported to be mutated in patients with myelodysplastic syndromes. A total of 51% of all patients had at least one point mutation, including 52% of the patients with normal cytogenetics. Mutations in RUNX1, TP53, and NRAS were most strongly associated with severe thrombocytopenia (P<0.001 for all comparisons) and an increased proportion of bone marrow blasts (P<0.006 for all comparisons). In a multivariable Cox regression model, the presence of mutations in five genes retained independent prognostic significance: TP53 (hazard ratio for death from any cause, 2.48; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.60 to 3.84), EZH2 (hazard ratio, 2.13; 95% CI, 1.36 to 3.33), ETV6 (hazard ratio, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.08 to 3.86), RUNX1 (hazard ratio, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.01 to 2.15), and ASXL1 (hazard ratio, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.89). CONCLUSIONS Somatic point mutations are common in myelodysplastic syndromes and are associated with specific clinical features. Mutations in TP53, EZH2, ETV6, RUNX1, and ASXL1 are predictors of poor overall survival in patients with myelodysplastic syndromes, independently of established risk factors. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and others.)

SUMMARY Genomic profiling has identified a subtype of high-risk B-progenitor acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL) with alteration of IKZF1, a gene expression profile similar to BCR-ABL1-positive ALL and poor outcome (Ph-like ALL). The genetic alterations that activate kinase signaling in Ph-like ALL are poorly understood. We performed transcriptome and whole genome sequencing on 15 cases of Ph-like ALL, and identified rearrangements involving ABL1, JAK2, PDGFRB, CRLF2 and EPOR, activating mutations of IL7R and FLT3, and deletion of SH2B3, which encodes the JAK2 negative regulator LNK. Importantly, several of these alterations induce transformation that is attenuated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors, suggesting the treatment outcome of these patients may be improved with targeted therapy.

Purpose The karyotype is a strong independent prognostic factor in myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS). Since the implementation of the International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS) in 1997, knowledge concerning the prognostic impact of abnormalities has increased substantially. The present study proposes a new and comprehensive cytogenetic scoring system based on an international data collection of 2,902 patients. Patients and Methods Patients were included from the German-Austrian MDS Study Group (n = 1,193), the International MDS Risk Analysis Workshop (n = 816), the Spanish Hematological Cytogenetics Working Group (n = 849), and the International Working Group on MDS Cytogenetics (n = 44) databases. Patients with primary MDS and oligoblastic acute myeloid leukemia (AML) after MDS treated with supportive care only were evaluated for overall survival (OS) and AML evolution. Internal validation by bootstrap analysis and external validation in an independent patient cohort were performed to confirm the results. Results In total, 19 cytogenetic categories were defined, providing clear prognostic classification in 91% of all patients. The abnormalities were classified into five prognostic subgroups (P < .001): very good (median OS, 61 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.5; n = 81); good (49 months; HR, 1.0 [reference category]; n = 1,809); intermediate (26 months; HR, 1.6; n = 529); poor (16 months; HR, 2.6; n = 148); and very poor (6 months; HR, 4.2; n = 187). The internal and external validations confirmed the results of the score. Conclusion In conclusion, these data should contribute to the ongoing efforts to update the IPSS by refining the cytogenetic risk categories.