http://www.klinikaikozpont.u-szeged.hu/pedia/images/pdf/CME_TEL/Full-Text/25.pdf

The Hallmarks of Aging

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.

/pdf/guidelines-for-the-use-and-interpretation-of-assays-for-ijf2t30pbq.pdf

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition)

Autophagy: Renovation of Cells and Tissues

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.

/pdf/guidelines-for-the-use-and-interpretation-of-assays-for-28d1pi1jvo.pdf

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

Autophagy and the Integrated Stress Response

BMP signaling has a conserved function in patterning the dorsal-ventral body axis in Bilateria and the directive axis in anthozoan cnidarians. So far, cnidarian studies have focused on the role of different BMP signaling network components in regulating pSMAD1/5 gradient formation. Much less is known about the target genes downstream of BMP signaling. To address this, we generated a genome-wide list of direct pSMAD1/5 target genes in the anthozoan Nematostella vectensis, several of which were conserved in Drosophila and Xenopus. Our ChIP-Seq analysis revealed that many of the regulatory molecules with documented bilaterally symmetric expression in Nematostella are directly controlled by BMP signaling. Among the so far uncharacterized BMP-dependent transcription factors and signaling molecules we identified several, whose bilaterally symmetric expression may be indicative of their involvement in secondary axis patterning. One of these molecules, zswim4-6, encodes a novel nuclear modulator of the pSMAD1/5 gradient potentially promoting BMP-dependent gene repression. Strikingly, overexpression of the zebrafish homologue zswim5 suggests that its effect on the pSMAD1/5 gradient is conserved between anthozoan Cnidaria and Bilateria.

/pdf/analysis-of-smad1-5-target-genes-in-a-sea-anemone-reveals-tfw14gx5.pdf

Analysis of SMAD1/5 target genes in a sea anemone reveals ZSWIM4-6 as a novel BMP signaling modulator

Embryogenesis is brought about by the coordinated activities of different signaling pathways controlling cell fate specification and morphogenesis. In vertebrate gastrulation, both Nodal and BMP signaling play key roles in germ layer specification and morphogenesis, yet their interplay to coordinate embryo patterning with morphogenesis is still insufficiently understood. Here, we took a reductionist approach using zebrafish embryonic explants to study the coordination of Nodal and BMP signaling for embryo patterning and morphogenesis. We show that Nodal signaling not only triggers explant elongation by inducing mesendodermal progenitors but also by suppressing BMP signaling activity at the site of mesendoderm induction. Ectopic BMP signaling in the mesendoderm blocks cell alignment and oriented mesendoderm intercalations, key processes to drive explant elongation. Translating these ex vivo observations to the intact zebrafish embryo showed that, similar to explants, Nodal signaling renders the dorsal domain less sensitive towards BMP signaling to allow effective cell intercalations and thus robust embryonic axis elongation. These findings suggest a dual function of Nodal signaling in embryonic axis elongation by both inducing mesendoderm and maintaining low levels of BMP signaling activity in the dorsal portion of the mesendoderm.

/pdf/robust-axis-elongation-by-nodal-dependent-restriction-of-bmp-2cewwjjk.pdf

Alexandra Schauer

Papers

Analysis of SMAD1/5 target genes in a sea anemone reveals ZSWIM4-6 as a novel BMP signaling modulator

Robust axis elongation by Nodal-dependent restriction of BMP signaling