scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

Angelika Amon

Bio: Angelika Amon is an academic researcher from Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The author has contributed to research in topics: Mitotic exit & Aneuploidy. The author has an hindex of 78, co-authored 200 publications receiving 26171 citations. Previous affiliations of Angelika Amon include Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory & University of California, San Francisco.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
Daniel J. Klionsky1, Kotb Abdelmohsen2, Akihisa Abe3, Joynal Abedin4  +2519 moreInstitutions (695)
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macro-autophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes.
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.

5,187 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
17 Oct 1997-Science
TL;DR: Overexpression of either CDC20 or CDH1 was sufficient to induce APC-dependent proteolysis of the appropriate target in stages of the cell cycle in which substrates are normally stable.
Abstract: Proteolysis mediated by the anaphase-promoting complex (APC) triggers chromosome segregation and exit from mitosis, yet its regulation is poorly understood. The conserved Cdc20 and Cdh1 proteins were identified as limiting, substrate-specific activators of APC-dependent proteolysis. CDC20 was required for the degradation of the APC substrate Pds1 but not for that of other APC substrates, such as Clb2 and Ase1. Conversely, cdh1Δmutants were impaired in the degradation of Ase1 and Clb2 but not in that of Pds1. Overexpression of either CDC20 orCDH1 was sufficient to induce APC-dependent proteolysis of the appropriate target in stages of the cell cycle in which substrates are normally stable.

876 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
17 Aug 2007-Science
TL;DR: It is concluded that aneuploidy causes not only a proliferative disadvantage but also a set of phenotypes that is independent of the identity of the individual extra chromosomes.
Abstract: Aneuploidy is a condition frequently found in tumor cells, but its effect on cellular physiology is not known. We have characterized one aspect of aneuploidy: the gain of extra chromosomes. We created a collection of haploid yeast strains that each bear an extra copy of one or more of almost all of the yeast chromosomes. Their characterization revealed that aneuploid strains share a number of phenotypes, including defects in cell cycle progression, increased glucose uptake, and increased sensitivity to conditions interfering with protein synthesis and protein folding. These phenotypes were observed only in strains carrying additional yeast genes, which indicates that they reflect the consequences of additional protein production as well as the resulting imbalances in cellular protein composition. We conclude that aneuploidy causes not only a proliferative disadvantage but also a set of phenotypes that is independent of the identity of the individual extra chromosomes.

862 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This work shows that the Cdc14 phosphatase triggers mitotic exit by three parallel mechanisms, each of which inhibits Cdk activity, and induces degradation of mitotic cyclins.

780 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
29 Apr 1999-Nature
TL;DR: It is shown that Cdc14 is sequestered in the nucleolus for most of the cell cycle, allowing it to reach its targets during nuclear division and a highly conserved signalling cascade, critical for the exit from mitosis, is required for this movement of CDC14 during anaphase.
Abstract: In eukaryotes, the activation of mitotic cyclin-dependent kinases (CDKs) induces mitosis, and their inactivation causes cells to leave mitosis1. In budding yeast, two redundant mechanisms induce the inactivation of mitotic CDKs. In one mechanism, a specialized ubiquitin-dependent proteolytic system (called the APC-dependent proteolysis machinery) degrades the mitotic (Clb) cyclin subunit. In the other, the kinase-inhibitor Sic1 binds to mitotic CDKs and inhibits their kinase activity1,2. The highly conserved protein phosphatase Cdc14 promotes both Clb degradation and Sic1 accumulation. Cdc14 promotes SIC1 transcription and the stabilization of Sic1 protein by dephosphorylating Sic1 and its transcription factor Swi5. Cdc14 activates the degradation of Clb cyclins by dephosphorylating the APC-specificity factor Cdh1 (refs 3, 4). So how is Cdc14 regulated? Here we show that Cdc14 is sequestered in the nucleolus for most of the cell cycle. During nuclear division, Cdc14 is released from the nucleolus, allowing it to reach its targets. A highly conserved signalling cascade, critical for the exit from mitosis, is required for this movement of Cdc14 during anaphase. Furthermore, we have identified a negative regulator of Cdc14, Cfi1, that anchors Cdc14 in the nucleolus.

618 citations


Cited by
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This review discusses recent information on functions and mechanisms of the ubiquitin system and focuses on what the authors know, and would like to know, about the mode of action of ubi...
Abstract: The selective degradation of many short-lived proteins in eukaryotic cells is carried out by the ubiquitin system. In this pathway, proteins are targeted for degradation by covalent ligation to ubiquitin, a highly conserved small protein. Ubiquitin-mediated degradation of regulatory proteins plays important roles in the control of numerous processes, including cell-cycle progression, signal transduction, transcriptional regulation, receptor down-regulation, and endocytosis. The ubiquitin system has been implicated in the immune response, development, and programmed cell death. Abnormalities in ubiquitin-mediated processes have been shown to cause pathological conditions, including malignant transformation. In this review we discuss recent information on functions and mechanisms of the ubiquitin system. Since the selectivity of protein degradation is determined mainly at the stage of ligation to ubiquitin, special attention is focused on what we know, and would like to know, about the mode of action of ubiquitin-protein ligation systems and about signals in proteins recognized by these systems.

7,888 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
Daniel J. Klionsky1, Kotb Abdelmohsen2, Akihisa Abe3, Joynal Abedin4  +2519 moreInstitutions (695)
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macro-autophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes.
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.

5,187 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: A comprehensive catalog of yeast genes whose transcript levels vary periodically within the cell cycle is created, and it is found that the mRNA levels of more than half of these 800 genes respond to one or both of these cyclins.
Abstract: We sought to create a comprehensive catalog of yeast genes whose transcript levels vary periodically within the cell cycle. To this end, we used DNA microarrays and samples from yeast cultures sync...

5,176 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
10 Feb 2000-Nature
TL;DR: Examination of large-scale yeast two-hybrid screens reveals interactions that place functionally unclassified proteins in a biological context, interactions between proteins involved in the same biological function, and interactions that link biological functions together into larger cellular processes.
Abstract: Two large-scale yeast two-hybrid screens were undertaken to identify protein-protein interactions between full-length open reading frames predicted from the Saccharomyces cerevisiae genome sequence. In one approach, we constructed a protein array of about 6,000 yeast transformants, with each transformant expressing one of the open reading frames as a fusion to an activation domain. This array was screened by a simple and automated procedure for 192 yeast proteins, with positive responses identified by their positions in the array. In a second approach, we pooled cells expressing one of about 6,000 activation domain fusions to generate a library. We used a high-throughput screening procedure to screen nearly all of the 6,000 predicted yeast proteins, expressed as Gal4 DNA-binding domain fusion proteins, against the library, and characterized positives by sequence analysis. These approaches resulted in the detection of 957 putative interactions involving 1,004 S. cerevisiae proteins. These data reveal interactions that place functionally unclassified proteins in a biological context, interactions between proteins involved in the same biological function, and interactions that link biological functions together into larger cellular processes. The results of these screens are shown here.

4,877 citations