During angiogenesis, Rho-GTPases influence endothelial cell migration and cell–cell adhesion; however it is not known whether they control formation of vessel lumens, which are essential for blood flow. Here, using an organotypic system that recapitulates distinct stages of VEGF-dependent angiogenesis, we show that lumen formation requires early cytoskeletal remodelling and lateral cell–cell contacts, mediated through the RAC1 guanine nucleotide exchange factor (GEF) DOCK4 (dedicator of cytokinesis 4). DOCK4 signalling is necessary for lateral filopodial protrusions and tubule remodelling prior to lumen formation, whereas proximal, tip filopodia persist in the absence of DOCK4. VEGF-dependent Rac activation via DOCK4 is necessary for CDC42 activation to signal filopodia formation and depends on the activation of RHOG through the RHOG GEF, SGEF. VEGF promotes interaction of DOCK4 with the CDC42 GEF DOCK9. These studies identify a novel Rho-family GTPase activation cascade for the formation of endothelial cell filopodial protrusions necessary for tubule remodelling, thereby influencing subsequent stages of lumen morphogenesis.

Little is known about the genes that regulate cyclinB-Cdc2 complexes at the G2/M transition of the plant cell cycle although in yeast and animals cdc25 and wee1 are central regulators of cdc2. Here we describe the isolation, by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), of a WEE1 cDNA (AtWEE1) in Arabidopsis thaliana (L.) Heynh. Semi-quantitative RT-PCR showed that AtWEE1 expression was confined to actively dividing regions of the plant. The overexpression of AtWEE1 in fission yeast (Schizosaccharomyces pombe) caused cells to arrest, and to grow but not divide, resulting in very elongated cells. Our data provide evidence for a functional WEE1 in A. thaliana.

Skeletal metastasis occurs in around 75% of advanced breast cancers, with the disease incurable once cancer cells disseminate to bone, but there remains an unmet need for biomarkers to identify patients at high risk of bone recurrence. This study aimed to identify such a biomarker and to assess its utility in predicting response to adjuvant zoledronic acid (zoledronate). We used quantitative proteomics (stable isotope labelling by amino acids in cell culture‐mass spectrometry; SILAC‐MS) to compare protein expression in a bone‐homing variant (BM1) of the human breast cancer cell line MDA‐MB‐231 with parental non‐bone‐homing cells to identify novel biomarkers for risk of subsequent bone metastasis in early breast cancer. SILAC‐MS showed that dedicator of cytokinesis protein 4 (DOCK4) was upregulated in bone‐homing BM1 cells, confirmed by western blotting. BM1 cells also had enhanced invasive ability compared with parental cells, which could be reduced by DOCK4‐shRNA. In a training tissue microarray (TMA) comprising 345 patients with early breast cancer, immunohistochemistry followed by Cox regression revealed that high DOCK4 expression correlated with histological grade ( p = 0.004) but not oestrogen receptor status ( p = 0.19) or lymph node involvement ( p = 0.15). A clinical validation TMA used tissue samples and the clinical database from the large AZURE adjuvant study ( n = 689). Adjusted Cox regression analyses showed that high DOCK4 expression in the control arm (no zoledronate) was significantly prognostic for first recurrence in bone (HR 2.13, 95%CI 1.06–4.30, p = 0.034). No corresponding association was found in patients who received zoledronate (HR 0.812, 95%CI 0.176–3.76, p = 0.790), suggesting that treatment with zoledronate may counteract the higher risk for bone relapse from high DOCK4‐expressing tumours. High DOCK4 expression was not associated with metastasis to non‐skeletal sites when these were assessed collectively. In conclusion, high DOCK4 in early breast cancer is significantly associated with aggressive disease and with future bone metastasis and is a potentially useful biomarker for subsequent bone metastasis risk. Copyright © 2018 Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Introduction: Waste incineration is increasingly used to reduce waste volume and produce electricity. Several incinerators have recently been proposed in Australia and community groups are concerned about health impacts. An overview of the evidence on health effects has been needed. Method:A systematic review of English language literature for waste incinerators and health using PRISMA methodology. Results:A range of adverse health effects were identified, including significant associations with some neoplasia, congenital anomalies, infant deaths and miscarriage, but not for other diseases. Ingestion was the dominant exposure pathway for the public. Newer incinerator technologies may reduce exposure.Discussion: Despite these findings, diverse chemicals, poor study methodologies and inconsistent reporting of incinerator technology specifications precludes firmer conclusions about safety. Conclusion:Older incinerator technology and infrequent maintenance schedules have been strongly linked with adverse health effects. More recent incinerators have fewer reported ill effects, perhaps because of inadequate time for adverse effects to emerge. A precautionary approach is required. Waste minimisation is essential.Implications for public health: Public health practitioners can offer clearer advice about adverse health effects from incinerators. We suggest improved research design and methods to make future studies more robust and comparable. We offer ideas for better policy and regulation.