Citations

Abstract Our current alveolar paradigm includes three highly specialized cell populations. Alveolar type I cells are flat, elongated cells that presumably enable gas exchange. Alveolar type II cells are small, cuboidal cells with metabolic, secretory, progenitor, and immunologic functions. Alveolar fibroblasts secrete extracellular matrix proteins that support alveolar structure. These cells work together to facilitate respiration. Many years of high-quality research have defined our understanding of alveolar biology. However, there is much to be determined about the factors controlling cellular phenotypes and crosstalk. Moreover, specific questions remain regarding origin, repopulation, and previously unrecognized functions of each cell. This article summarizes the current data for each cell type and highlights areas that would benefit from further investigation.

Abstract The purpose of the workshop was to identify still obscure or novel cellular components of the lung, to determine cell function in lung development and in health that impacts on disease, and to decide promising avenues for future research to extract and phenotype these cells. Since robust technologies are now available to identify, sort, purify, culture, and phenotype cells, progress is now within sight to unravel the origins and functional capabilities of lung cells in developmental stages and in disease. The Workshop's agenda was to first discuss the lung's embryologic development, including progenitor and stem cells, and then assess the functional and structural cells in three main compartments of the lung: (1) airway cells in bronchial and bronchiolar epithelium and bronchial glands (basal, secretory, ciliated, Clara, and neuroendocrine cells); (2) alveolar unit cells (Type 1 cells, Type 2 cells, and fibroblasts in the interstitium); and (3) pulmonary vascular cells (endothelial cells from different vascular structures, smooth muscle cells, and adventitial fibroblasts). The main recommendations were to: (1) characterize with better cell markers, both surface and nonsurface, the various cells within the lung, including progenitor cells and stem cells; (2) obtain more knowledge about gene expression in specific cell types in health and disease, which will provide insights into biological and pathologic processes; (3) develop more methodologies for cell culture, isolation, sorting, co-culture, and immortalization; and (4) promote tissue banks to facilitate the procurement of tissue from normal and from diseased lung for analysis at all levels.

Abstract A recent genome-wide association study found that genetic variants on chromosomes 3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 19 and X were associated with prostate cancer risk. We evaluated the most significant single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) in these loci using a worldwide consortium of 13 groups (PRACTICAL). Blood DNA from 7,370 prostate cancer cases and 5,742 male controls was analyzed by genotyping assays. Odds ratios (OR) associated with each genotype were estimated using unconditional logistic regression. Six of the seven SNPs showed clear evidence of association with prostate cancer (P = 0.0007-P = 10−17). For each of these six SNPs, the estimated per-allele OR was similar to those previously reported and ranged from 1.12 to 1.29. One SNP on 3p12 (rs2660753) showed a weaker association than previously reported [per-allele OR, 1.08 (95% confidence interval, 1.00-1.16; P = 0.06) versus 1.18 (95% confidence interval, 1.06-1.31)]. The combined risks associated with each pair of SNPs were consistent with a multiplicative risk model. Under this model, and in combination with previously reported SNPs on 8q and 17q, these loci explain 16% of the familial risk of the disease, and men in the top 10% of the risk distribution have a 2.1-fold increased risk relative to general population rates. This study provides strong confirmation of these susceptibility loci in multiple populations and shows that they make an important contribution to prostate cancer risk prediction. (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2008;17(8):2052–61)

Abstract Purpose: To assess the effects of external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) on adenoviral-mediated transgene expression in vitro and in vivo and to define an optimal strategy for combining sodium iodide symporter (NIS)–mediated 131I therapy with EBRT. Experimental Design: Expression of reporter genes [NIS, green fluorescent protein (GFP), β-galactosidase (lacZ), and luciferase (Luc)] from replication-deficient adenoviruses was assessed in tumor cell lines under basal conditions and following irradiation. The effects of viral multiplicity of infection (MOI) and EBRT dose on the magnitude and duration of gene expression were determined. In vivo studies were done with Ad-CMV-GFP and Ad-RSV-Luc. Results: EBRT increased NIS, GFP, and β-galactosidase expression in colorectal, head and neck, and lung cancer cells. Radiation dose and MOI were important determinants of response to EBRT, with greatest effects at higher EBRT doses and lower MOIs. Radiation exerted both transductional (through increased coxsackie-adenoviral receptor and integrin αv) and nontransductional effects, irrespective of promoter sequence (CMV, RSV, hTR, or hTERT). Analysis of the schedule of EBRT followed by viral infection revealed maximal transduction at 24 hours. Radiation maintained increasing radioiodide uptake from Ad-hTR-NIS over 6 days, in direct contrast to reducing levels in unirradiated cells. The effects of EBRT in increasing and maintaining adenovirus-mediated transgene expression were also seen in vivo using GFP- and luciferase-expressing adenoviral vectors. Conclusions: Radiation increased the magnitude and duration of NIS gene expression from replication-deficient adenoviruses. The transductional effect is maximal at 24 hours, but radioiodide uptake is maintained at an elevated level over 6 days after infection.

AbstractImatinib mesylate (IM, Gleevec) has largely supplanted allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) as first line therapy for chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). Nevertheless, many people with CML eventually undergo HCT, raising the question of whether prior IM therapy impacts HCT success. Data from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research on 409 subjects treated with IM before HCT (IM+) and 900 subjects who did not receive IM before HCT (IM−) were analyzed. Among patients in first chronic phase, IM therapy before HCT was associated with better survival but no statistically significant differences in treatment-related mortality, relapse, and leukemia-free survival. Better HLA-matched donors, use of bone marrow, and transplantation within one year of diagnosis were also associated with better survival. A matched-pairs analysis was performed and confirmed a higher survival rate among first chronic phase patients receiving IM. Among patients transplanted with advanced CML, use of IM before HCT was not associated with treatment-related mortality, relapse, leukemia-free survival, or survival. Acute graft-versus-host disease rates were similar between IM+ and IM− groups regardless of leukemia phase. These results should be reassuring to patients receiving IM before HCT.