Aimee L Edinger

University of California, Irvine, Irvine, California, United States

Are you Aimee L Edinger?

Claim your profile

Publications (58)362.58 Total impact

  • Source
    Daniel J Klionsky · Kotb Abdelmohsen · Akihisa Abe · Md Joynal Abedin · Hagai Abeliovich · Abraham Acevedo Arozena · Hiroaki Adachi · Christopher M Adams · Peter D Adams · Khosrow Adeli · [...] · Orsolya Kapuy · Vassiliki Karantza · Md Razaul Karim · Parimal Karmakar · Arthur Kaser · Susmita Kaushik · Thomas Kawula · A Murat Kaynar · Po-Yuan Ke · Zun-Ji Ke ·

    Full-text · Dataset · Jan 2016
  • Source
    Daniel J Klionsky · Kotb Abdelmohsen · Akihisa Abe · Md Joynal Abedin · Hagai Abeliovich · Abraham Acevedo Arozena · Hiroaki Adachi · Christopher M Adams · Peter D Adams · Khosrow Adeli · [...] · Xiao-Feng Zhu · Yuhua Zhu · Shi-Mei Zhuang · Xiaohong Zhuang · Elio Ziparo · Christos E Zois · Teresa Zoladek · Wei-Xing Zong · Antonio Zorzano · Susu M Zughaier ·
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: 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. For example, 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 versus those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process including the amount and rate of cargo sequestered and degraded). In particular, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation must be differentiated from stimuli that increase 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. It is worth emphasizing here that lysosomal digestion is a stage of autophagy and evaluating its competence is a crucial part of the evaluation of autophagic flux, or complete autophagy. 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. Along these lines, because of the potential for pleiotropic effects due to blocking autophagy through genetic manipulation, it is imperative to target by gene knockout or RNA interference more than one autophagy-related protein. In addition, some individual Atg proteins, or groups of proteins, are involved in other cellular pathways implying that not all Atg proteins can be used as a specific marker for an autophagic process. 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 assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field.
    Full-text · Article · Jan 2016 · Autophagy
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: FTY720 sequesters lymphocytes in secondary lymphoid organs through effects on sphingosine-1-phosphate (S1P) receptors. However, at higher doses than are required for immunosuppression, FTY720 also functions as an anticancer agent in multiple animal models. Our published work indicates that the anticancer effects of FTY720 do not depend on actions at S1P receptors but instead stem from FTY720s ability to restrict access to extracellular nutrients by down-regulating nutrient transporter proteins. This result was significant because S1P receptor activation is responsible for FTY720s dose-limiting toxicity, bradycardia, that prevents its use in cancer patients. Here, we describe diastereomeric and enantiomeric 3- and 4-C-aryl 2-hydroxymethyl pyrrolidines that are more active than the previously known analogues. Of importance is that these compounds fail to activate S1P1 or S1P3 receptors in vivo but retain inhibitory effects on nutrient transporter proteins and anticancer activity in solid tumor xenograft models. Our studies reaffirm that the anticancer activity of FTY720 does not depend upon S1P receptor activation and uphold the promise of using S1P receptor-inactive azacyclic FTY720 analogues in human cancer patients.
    No preview · Article · Dec 2015 · ACS Chemical Biology
  • Source
    Alison N McCracken · Aimee L Edinger
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Rapidly proliferating cancer cells increase flux through anabolic pathways to build the mass necessary to support cell division. Imported amino acids and glucose lie at the apex of the anabolic pyramid. Consistent with this, elevated expression of nutrient transporter proteins is characteristic of aggressive and highly malignant cancers. Because tumour cells are more dependent than their normal neighbours on accelerated nutrient import, these up-regulated transporters could be excellent targets for selective anti-cancer therapies. A study by Babu et al. in a recent issue of the Biochemical Journal definitively shows that SLC6A14 (where SLC is solute carrier) is one such cancer-specific amino acid transporter. Although mice completely lacking SLC6A14 are viable and exhibit normal mammary gland development, these animals are highly resistant to mammary tumour initiation and progression driven by potent oncogenes. Because SLC6A14 is essential for tumour growth yet dispensable for normal development and tissue maintenance, small molecules that block amino acid import through this transporter could be effective and selective anti-cancer agents, particularly as components of rational drug combinations. © 2015 Authors; published by Portland Press Limited.
    Preview · Article · Sep 2015 · Biochemical Journal
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Bacterial infections associated with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) are a major economic burden to hospitals, and confer high rates of morbidity and mortality among those infected. Exploitation of novel therapeutic targets is thus necessary to combat this dangerous pathogen. Here, we report on the identification and characterization, including crystal structures, of two nitric oxide synthase (NOS) inhibitors that function as antimicrobials against MRSA. These data provide the first evidence that bacterial NOS (bNOS) inhibitors can work synergistically with oxidative stress to enhance MRSA killing. Crystal structures show that each inhibitor contacts an active site Ile residue in bNOS that is Val in the mammalian NOS isoforms. Mutagenesis studies show that the additional nonpolar contacts provided by the Ile in bNOS contribute to tighter binding toward the bacterial enzyme. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
    Full-text · Article · Jun 2015 · Chemistry & biology
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Class switch DNA recombination (CSR) is central to the maturation of the Ab response because it diversifies Ab effector functions. Like somatic hypermutation, CSR requires activation-induced cytidine deaminase (AID), whose expression is restricted to B cells, as induced by CD40 engagement or dual TLR-BCR engagement (primary CSR-inducing stimuli). By constructing conditional knockout Igh(+/C)γ(1-cre)Rab7(fl/fl) mice, we identified a B cell-intrinsic role for Rab7, a small GTPase involved in intracellular membrane functions, in mediating AID induction and CSR. Igh(+/C)γ(1-cre)Rab7(fl/fl) mice displayed normal B and T cell development and were deficient in Rab7 only in B cells undergoing Igh(C)γ(1-cre) Iγ1-Sγ1-Cγ1-cre transcription, as induced-like Igh germline Iγ1-Sγ1-Cγ1 and Iε-Sε-Cε transcription-by IL-4 in conjunction with a primary CSR-inducing stimulus. These mice could not mount T-independent or T-dependent class-switched IgG1 or IgE responses while maintaining normal IgM levels. Igh(+/C)γ(1-cre)Rab7(fl/fl) B cells showed, in vivo and in vitro, normal proliferation and survival, normal Blimp-1 expression and plasma cell differentiation, as well as intact activation of the noncanonical NF-κB, p38 kinase, and ERK1/2 kinase pathways. They, however, were defective in AID expression and CSR in vivo and in vitro, as induced by CD40 engagement or dual TLR1/2-, TLR4-, TLR7-, or TLR9-BCR engagement. In Igh(+/C)γ(1-cre)Rab7(fl/fl) B cells, CSR was rescued by enforced AID expression. These findings, together with our demonstration that Rab7-mediated canonical NF-κB activation, as critical to AID induction, outline a novel role of Rab7 in signaling pathways that lead to AID expression and CSR, likely by promoting assembly of signaling complexes along intracellular membranes. Copyright © 2015 by The American Association of Immunologists, Inc.
    Full-text · Article · Mar 2015 · The Journal of Immunology
  • Source
    Jie Chen · Srinivas B Narayan · Aimee L Edinger · Michael J Bennett

    Full-text · Dataset · Nov 2014
  • Source
    Jie Chen · Srinivas B Narayan · Aimee L Edinger · Michael J Bennett

    Full-text · Dataset · Nov 2014
  • Source
    Jie Chen · Srinivas B Narayan · Aimee L Edinger · Michael J Bennett

    Full-text · Dataset · Nov 2014
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: 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.
    Full-text · Dataset · Dec 2013
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: FTY720 functions as an immunosuppressant due to its effect on sphingosine-1-phosphate receptors. At doses well above those needed for immunosuppression, FTY720 also has anti-neoplastic actions. Our published work suggests that at least some of FTY720's anti-cancer activity is independent of its effects on S1P receptors and due instead to its ability to induce nutrient transporter down-regulation. Compounds that trigger nutrient transporter loss but lack FTY720's S1P receptor-related, dose-limiting toxicity have the potential to be effective and selective anti-tumor agents. In this study, a series of enantiomerically pure and stereochemically diverse O-substituted benzyl ethers of pyrrolidines was generated and tested for the ability to kill human leukemia cells. The stereochemistry of the hydroxymethyl was found to be a key determinant of compound activity. Moreover, phosphorylation of this group was not required for anti-leukemic activity.
    No preview · Article · Oct 2013 · ACS Medicinal Chemistry Letters
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Nutrient stress that produces quiescence and catabolism in normal cells is lethal to cancer cells, because oncogenic mutations constitutively drive anabolism. One driver of biosynthesis in cancer cells is the mammalian target of rapamycin complex 1 (mTORC1) signaling complex. Activating mTORC1 by deleting its negative regulator tuberous sclerosis complex 2 (TSC2) leads to hypersensitivity to glucose deprivation. We have previously shown that ceramide kills cells in part by triggering nutrient transporter loss and restricting access to extracellular amino acids and glucose, suggesting that TSC2-deficient cells would be hypersensitive to ceramide. However, murine embryonic fibroblasts (MEFs) lacking TSC2 were highly resistant to ceramide-induced death. Consistent with the observation that ceramide limits access to both amino acids and glucose, TSC2(-/-) MEFs also had a survival advantage when extracellular amino acids and glucose were both reduced. As TSC2(-/-) MEFs were resistant to nutrient stress despite sustained mTORC1 activity, we assessed whether mTORC1 signaling might be beneficial under these conditions. In low amino acid and glucose medium, and following ceramide-induced nutrient transporter loss, elevated mTORC1 activity significantly enhanced the adaptive upregulation of new transporter proteins for amino acids and glucose. Strikingly, the introduction of oncogenic Ras abrogated the survival advantage of TSC2(-/-) MEFs upon ceramide treatment most likely by increasing nutrient demand. These results suggest that, in the absence of oncogene-driven biosynthetic demand, mTORC1-dependent translation facilitates the adaptive cellular response to nutrient stress.Oncogene advance online publication, 22 April 2013; doi:10.1038/onc.2013.139.
    No preview · Article · Apr 2013 · Oncogene
  • Source
    Saurabh Ghosh Roy · Michael W Stevens · Lomon So · Aimee L Edinger
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Mouse models lacking proteins essential for autophagosome formation have demonstrated that autophagy plays a critical role in T cell development and activation. To better understand the function of autophagy in quiescent and activated lymphocytes, we have generated a mouse deficient in rab7 selectively in T cells and compared the effects of blocking autophagy at an early (atg5 (-/-) ) or late (rab7 (-/-) ) stage on T cell biology. rab7 (-/-) murine embryonic fibroblasts (MEFs) and T cells generated from these mice exhibit a profound block in autophagosome degradation and are as sensitive as atg5 (-/-) cells to extracellular nutrient limitation. Rab7 (flox/flox) CD4-Cre (+) mice lacking the RAB7 protein in both CD4 and CD8 T cells had reduced numbers of peripheral T cells, but this defect was not as severe as in Atg5 (flox/flox) CD4-Cre (+) mice despite efficient rab7 deletion and inhibition of autophagic flux. This difference may stem from the reduced ROS generation and enhanced survival of rab7 (-/-) T cells compared with wild-type and atg5 (-/-) T cells in the absence of cytokine stimulation. rab7 (-/-) and atg5 (-/-) T cells exhibited similar defects in proliferation both following antibody-mediated T cell receptor (TCR) cross-linking and using a more physiologic activation protocol, allogeneic stimulation. Interestingly, autophagy was not required to provide building blocks for the upregulation of nutrient transporter proteins immediately following activation. Together, these studies suggest that autophagosome degradation is required for the survival of activated T cells, but that loss of rab7 is better tolerated in naïve T cells than the loss of atg5.
    Full-text · Article · Apr 2013 · Autophagy
  • Alison N McCracken · Aimee L Edinger
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Highly proliferative cells, including cancer cells, require a constant supply of molecular building blocks to support their growth. To acquire substrates such as glucose and amino acids from the extracellular space, dividing cells rely on transporter proteins in the plasma membrane. Numerous studies link transcriptional and post-translational control of nutrient transporter expression with proliferation, highlighting the importance of nutrient transporters in both physiologic and pathologic growth. Here we review recent work that spotlights the crucial role of nutrient transporters in cell growth and proliferation, discuss post-translational mechanisms for coordinating expression of different transporters, and consider the therapeutic potential of targeting these proteins in cancer and other diseases characterized by inappropriate cell division.
    No preview · Article · Feb 2013 · Trends in Endocrinology and Metabolism
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: 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 versus those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process);5,6 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.
    Full-text · Article · Apr 2012 · Autophagy
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: 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.
    Full-text · Article · Apr 2012 · Autophagy
  • Source

    Full-text · Article · Apr 2012 · Autophagy
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: 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.
    Full-text · Article · Apr 2012 · Autophagy
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: 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.
    Full-text · Article · Apr 2012 · Autophagy
  • Source

    Full-text · Article · Jan 2012 · Autophagy

Publication Stats

6k Citations
362.58 Total Impact Points

Institutions

  • 2005-2015
    • University of California, Irvine
      • • Department of Developmental and Cell Biology
      • • Department of Molecular Biology and Biochemistry
      Irvine, California, United States
  • 2012
    • University of Michigan
      • Life Sciences Institute
      Ann Arbor, MI, United States
  • 1997-2004
    • University of Pennsylvania
      • • Department of Cancer Biology - CBIO
      • • Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine
      Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States
    • University of Louisville
      Louisville, Kentucky, United States
  • 2002
    • The Scripps Research Institute
      La Jolla, California, United States
  • 1999
    • The Rockefeller University
      New York, New York, United States