Search

Simple Summary: Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in men and a major cause of cancer-related deaths around the world. Prostate cancer that has spread to other parts of the body (advanced prostate cancer) is often treated with a drug called enzalutamide, which is a type of hormone therapy. Enzalutamide works by blocking the effect of the testosterone hormone on prostate cancer cells to stop them from growing. While this can be effective for several years, unfortunately, many patients being treated with enzalutamide eventually go on to become resistant to treatment, and the therapy stops working. Here, we show that prostate cancer cells that have become resistant to enzalutamide have increased levels of a type of sugar (known as sialic acid) on their surfaces. We set out to test whether stripping sialic acid from the surface of prostate cancer cells could help keep enzalutamide working for longer. Excitingly, our experiments show that treating prostate cancer cells with a drug to block sialic acid can partially reverse enzalutamide resistance. These findings suggest that drugs targeting sialic acid could be used in combination with enzalutamide therapy to disarm drug resistance and provide urgently needed new treatment options for men with prostate cancer. Prostate cancer is a lethal solid malignancy and a leading cause of cancer-related deaths in males worldwide. Treatments, including radical prostatectomy, radiotherapy, and hormone therapy, are available and have improved patient survival; however, recurrence remains a huge clinical challenge. Enzalutamide is a second-generation androgen receptor antagonist that is used to treat castrate-resistant prostate cancer. Among patients who initially respond to enzalutamide, virtually all acquire secondary resistance, and an improved understanding of the mechanisms involved is urgently needed. Aberrant glycosylation, and, in particular, alterations to sialylated glycans, have been reported as mediators of therapy resistance in cancer, but a link between tumour-associated glycans and resistance to therapy in prostate cancer has not yet been investigated. Here, using cell line models, we show that prostate cancer cells with acquired resistance to enzalutamide therapy have an upregulation of the sialyltransferase ST6 beta-galactoside alpha-2,6-sialyltransferase 1 (ST6GAL1) and increased levels of α2,6-sialylated N-glycans. Furthermore, using the sialyltransferase inhibitor P-SiaFNEtoc, we discover that acquired resistance to enzalutamide can be partially reversed by combining enzalutamide therapy with sialic acid blockade. Our findings identify a potential role for ST6GAL1-mediated aberrant sialylation in acquired resistance to enzalutamide therapy for prostate cancer and suggest that sialic acid blockade in combination with enzalutamide may represent a novel therapeutic approach in patients with advanced disease. Our study also highlights the potential to bridge the fields of cancer biology and glycobiology to develop novel combination therapies for prostate cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The praxial philosophy of music education in "Music Matters" (2015) argues that music educators should teach democratically, creatively, and ethically toward empowering students' abilities to achieve full human flourishing through critically reflective music making and listening of all kinds. Moreover, "Music Matters" contends that teachers have a civic responsibility to develop students' awareness of why and how they should engage in music making for self- and community transformation. Thus, praxial music teachers resist all forms of oppression and defend pupils against their own personal influence. Also, toward the growth of pre-service and in-service music teachers' creative and educational abilities, "Music Matters" provides multidimensional, porous, and open concepts of musics, "educations," personhood, musical understanding, musical products, musical-emotional experiences, creativity, and curriculum. Therefore, our discussion refutes Randall Allsup's numerous misrepresentations of praxialism as an oppressive, uncreative, archaic, Master-apprentice, performance-centered philosophy that cultivates obedient students, and represents the worst abuses of "institutional" music teaching.

An enactive approach to music education is explored through the lens of critical ontology. Assumptions central to Western academic music culture are critically discussed; and the concept of "ontological education" is introduced as an alternative framework. We argue that this orientation embraces more primordial ways of knowing and being, revealing the fundamentally self-organizing or "autopoietic" nature of the embodied musical mind. This enactive perspective is then contrasted with classic constructivist approaches and is developed within the context of care ethics. Ethical and practical possibilities for an enactive music pedagogy are suggested with the goal of helping music educators develop approaches based in possibility, imagination, and relationality, rather than in conformity to standardized practices and conventional ways of thinking. To conclude, the importance of critical ontology and the enactivist perspective is considered for music teacher education if our society is to open up to the full possibilities of music for human well-being.

This essay responds to five commentaries on "Music Matters: A Philosophy of Music Education," 2nd edition (2015). Because each author provides a substantial discussion of different aspects of the book, this essay does not attempt to address all points. Instead, we reflect on selected aspects of each scholar's critique.

Since its publication in 1995, a significant literature has developed around David J. Elliott's praxial philosophy of music education, as explained in "Music Matters: A New Philosophy of Music Education." This literature includes a range of commentaries in journals, books, edited books, and dissertations. Although Elliott has replied to some positive and negative commentaries since 1995, he has not addressed several adverse discussions by leading music education philosophers. Accordingly, we posit that there is an important gap in music education's philosophical discourse that may cause some music education students and researchers to accept or reject important criticisms of Elliott's praxialism without sufficient information or reflection. In this article we analyze several critiques of Elliott's praxialism. Our discussion divides into three sections related to major topics presented in the praxial philosophy particularly and music education generally: music making, music listening and musical works, and musical values. Each section presents (a) critics' evaluations of Elliott's position on a given topic, and (b) Elliott's stated position on that topic, as explained in "Music Matters." Where pertinent, we consult the views of other scholars on specific topics. We end each section with brief reflections on critics' claims, reserving our final evaluations for the concluding section.

On June 20, 2012, Professor John Kratus welcomed the MayDay Group to Michigan State University for "Colloquium 24: The Aims of Music Education". On behalf of all members of the Mayday Group, the author wishes to extend his deepest gratitude to Professor Kratus and his colleagues at Michigan State for their extremely gracious and thoughtful hospitality and for the very hard work they invested in preparing this outstanding event. In his Call for Papers, Professor Kratus wrote: "In recent years music educators have reexamined their curricula and teaching practices to adjust to the current needs of a diverse population of students living in a digital world. As such, questions of "what" should music educators teach and "how" should they teach it have been the focus of healthy debate. A more fundamental question that has received little attention of late is: "why" is music education of value? Do changing times necessitate changing aims for music education? Is the music education profession smarter than "music makes you smarter?" Taking the long view, "what is it that music educators are trying to accomplish?" Based on the Call for Papers, Colloquium presentations pivoted on four themes: (1) The musical aims of music education (e.g., new and emerging definitions of musicianship; music engagements across the lifespan; types of musical knowledge; development of musical skills, knowledge, and dispositions); (2) The intrapersonal aims of music education (e.g., musical identity; self-efficacy; flow; joy; enhancement of intelligence and other academic/personal traits); (3) The interpersonal aims of music education (e.g., connection to others; connection to culture(s); artistic citizenship); and (3) The social aims of music education (e.g. social justice; inclusion; democratic practices; cross-cultural understanding).

If music education is going to meet its full potential in the twenty-first century, then people may need to rethink their assumptions about the central values of school music. The author fully supports all effective, educative, and ethical ways of teaching and learning music, as well as students' critically reflective and democratic engagement with a reasonable diversity of musical styles and pieces. In this article, he suggests that educators may have unrealized opportunities and responsibilities to integrate traditional means and ends--to integrate musical processes, products, experiences, and outcomes--in the service of additional or alternative aims. He points out that anything in the world, including worthy endeavors like music education, can be seen and interpreted in many ways. Regardless of the ways educators choose to interpret the what and how of music education, the logically prior question they must always keep asking themselves is "why" are they doing the things they do? There is a wide range of options. Some teachers may answer by saying that they teach music to motivate students' love of creative music-making and listening, or deepen students' musical-affective experiences, or win state festivals, or raise students' math scores and future salary prospects, or prepare students for lifelong musical learning. The author suggests another answer, which teachers may or may not wish to consider when they envision the aims and values of music and education. The term he uses to label his answer and to indicate where he is heading is "music education as/for artistic citizenship." (Contains 1 figure and 17 notes.)

In this article, the author engages in a lively interactive discussion with Paul Woodford's text, "Democracy and Music Education." He questions Woodford's criticism of Praxial Music Education (PME)--particularly his dismissal of PME as a "performance alone" notion. PME, this author asserts, is fundamentally multidimensional, contextually reflexive and contingent on a range of modes of enjoying music, including the important role of listening. This essay goes on to comprehensively discuss a range of points relating to the connections and resonances between music education and democracy. In response to Woodford, the author raises issues about children's music learning, their induction into musical styles and traditions, and the ethical nature of such processes. He concedes that teachers and students need to begin to foreground the ethical, historical and other contextual aspects of music and engage in meaningful conversations about musical-social consequences. This calls for the music teacher to be "coach, advisor and informed critic" rather than simply "know it all big-brother." One of his more interesting suggestions is his insistence that music educators embrace emotion and passion as important facets of their teaching styles--as the fusion of feeling and reason is pivotal in music teaching and learning. His call to emotion in music teaching is put forward in reaction to Woodford's emphasis on "abstract reason" in "Democracy and Music Education." (Contains 5 notes.)

While educators in other fields have made significant strides in incorporating issues of social justice in their foundations and curricula, and while a few music education theorists have labored to move everyone in this direction, music education lags behind. Hence the author's plan for this paper. First, the author reflects on the concept of social justice in terms of several facets, strands, or dimensions. Second, he discusses this concept in relation to selected social movements. Third, the author examines the work of two music educators/community musicians whose efforts illustrate aspects of music education as-and-for social justice. Lastly, he offers some suggestions for rethinking and "practicizing" music teaching and learning as/for social justice. (Contains 10 notes.)

What do musicians, critics, and listeners mean when they use emotion-words to describe a piece of instrumental music? How can "pure" musical sounds "express" emotions such as joyfulness, sadness, anguish, optimism, and anger? Sounds are not living organisms; sounds cannot feel emotions. Yet many people around the world believe they hear emotions in sounds and/or feel the emotions expressed by musical patterns. Is there a reasonable explanation for this dilemma? These issues gain additional importance when we ask them in the context of music education. For example, can we, or should we, teach music students to listen-for musical expressions of emotion? If so, how? My contention is that listeners can and do hear emotions in musical patterns; musical sounds can be expressive of emotions. Accordingly, I offer ideas for teaching students how to hear and create musical expressions of emotions.

This article introduces and reflects on the biographies of ISME's four Honorary Presidents: Leo Kestenberg, Zoltan Kodaly, Dimitri Kabalevsky and Frank Callaway. The lenses of modernity and postmodernity are applied in an examination of the relationships among the topics of individuality, community and "representation" in relation to: (a) the four men discussed in this issue; and (b) key issues in music education including the nature of music education "foundations", curriculum development and feminism(s).

Argues in support of integrating music education with other subject areas, discussing the importance of maintaining music's integrity, combining the arts, reasons for integration, and whether integration is always good. Offers an opposing argument that views the integration of music with other subject areas as unsound. (CMK)