The innate immune system in drosophila and mammals senses the invasion of microorganisms using the family of Toll receptors, stimulation of which initiates a range of host defense mechanisms. In drosophila antimicrobial responses rely on two signaling pathways: the Toll pathway and the IMD pathway. In mammals there are at least 10 members of the Toll-like receptor (TLR) family that recognize specific components conserved among microorganisms. Activation of the TLRs leads not only to the induction of inflammatory responses but also to the development of antigen-specific adaptive immunity. The TLR-induced inflammatory response is dependent on a common signaling pathway that is mediated by the adaptor molecule MyD88. However, there is evidence for additional pathways that mediate TLR ligand-specific biological responses.

Toll-like receptors.

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)

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

Eukaryotic cells can initiate several distinct programmes of self-destruction, and the nature of the cell death process (non-inflammatory or proinflammatory) instructs responses of neighbouring cells, which in turn dictates important systemic physiological outcomes Pyroptosis, or caspase 1-dependent cell death, is inherently inflammatory, is triggered by various pathological stimuli, such as stroke, heart attack or cancer, and is crucial for controlling microbial infections Pathogens have evolved mechanisms to inhibit pyroptosis, enhancing their ability to persist and cause disease Ultimately, there is a competition between host and pathogen to regulate pyroptosis, and the outcome dictates life or death of the host

/pdf/pyroptosis-host-cell-death-and-inflammation-4f2vauj8tx.pdf

Pyroptosis: host cell death and inflammation

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

/pdf/guidelines-for-the-use-and-interpretation-of-assays-for-4sx3t3he7d.pdf

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy in higher eukaryotes

To restrict infection by Legionella pneumophila, mouse macrophages require Naip5, a member of the nucleotide-binding oligomerization domain leucine-rich repeat family of pattern recognition receptors, which detect cytoplasmic microbial products. We report that mouse macrophages restricted L. pneumophila replication and initiated a proinfl ammatory program of cell death when fl agellin contaminated their cytosol. Nuclear condensation, membrane permeability, and interleukin-1�� secretion were triggered by type IV secretioncompetent bacteria that encode fl agellin. The macrophage response to L. pneumophila was independent of Toll-like receptor signaling but correlated with Naip5 function and required caspase 1 activity. The L. pneumophila type IV secretion system provided only pore-forming activity because listeriolysin O of Listeria monocytogenes could substitute for its contribution. Flagellin monomers appeared to trigger the macrophage response from perforated phagosomes: once heated to disassemble fi laments, fl agellin triggered cell death but native fl agellar preparations did not. Flagellin made L. pneumophila vulnerable to innate immune mechanisms because Naip5 + macrophages restricted the growth of virulent microbes, but fl agellin mutants replicated freely. Likewise, after intratracheal inoculation of Naip5 + mice, the yield of L. pneumophila in the lungs declined, whereas the burden of fl agellin mutants increased. Accordingly, macrophages respond to cytosolic fl agellin by a mechanism that requires Naip5 and caspase 1 to restrict bacterial replication and release proinfl ammatory cytokines that control L. pneumophila infection.

/pdf/cytosolic-recognition-of-flagellin-by-mouse-macrophages-1ylwy4jb8v.pdf

Cytosolic recognition of flagellin by mouse macrophages restricts Legionella pneumophila infection

In nature, Legionella pneumophila replicates exclusively as an intracellular parasite of amoebae, but it also persists in the environment as a free-living microbe. Studies of how this opportunistic pathogen recognizes and responds to distinct extracellular and intracellular environments identified a link between the growth phase and expression of traits previously correlated with virulence. When cultured in broth, only post-exponential-phase L. pneumophila was sodium sensitive, cytotoxic, osmotically resistant, competent to evade macrophage lysosomes, infectious, and motile. Likewise, the L. pneumophila phenotype changed during growth in macrophages. During the intracellular replication period, this bacterium was sodium resistant and lacked flagella; concomitant with macrophage lysis, L. pneumophila became sodium sensitive and flagellated. Expression of the virulent phenotype was a response to starvation, since exponential-phase L. pneumophila became cytotoxic, sodium sensitive, and motile after incubation in broth from stationary-phase cultures, except when it was supplemented with amino acids. Together, these data indicate that while nutrients are plentiful, intracellular L. pneumophila organisms are dedicated to replication; when amino acids become limiting, the progeny express virulence factors to escape the spent host, to disperse and survive in the aquatic environment, and to reestablish a protected intracellular niche favorable for growth.

https://iai.asm.org/content/iai/66/7/3029.full.pdf

Expression of Legionella pneumophila Virulence Traits in Response to Growth Conditions

When microbes contaminate the macrophage cytoplasm, leukocytes undergo a proinflammatory death that is initiated by nucleotide-binding-domain-, leucine-rich-repeat-containing proteins (NLR proteins) that bind and activate caspase-1. We report that these inflammasome components also regulate autophagy, a vesicular pathway to eliminate cytosolic debris. In response to infection with flagellate Legionella pneumophila, C57BL/6J mouse macrophages equipped with caspase-1 and the NLR proteins NAIP5 and NLRC4 stimulated autophagosome turnover. A second trigger of inflammasome assembly, K + efflux, also rapidly activated autophagy in macrophages that produced caspase-1. Autophagy protects infected macrophages from pyroptosis, since caspase-1-dependent cell death occurred more frequently when autophagy was dampened pharmacologically by either 3-methyladenine or an inhibitor of the Atg4 protease. Accordingly, in addition to coordinating pyroptosis, both (pro-) caspase-1 protein and NLR components of inflammasomes equip macrophages to recruit autophagy, a disposal pathway that raises the threshold of contaminants necessary to trigger proinflammatory leukocyte death. IMPORTANCE An exciting development in the innate-immunity field is the recognition that macrophages enlist autophagy to protect their cytoplasm from infection. Nutrient deprivation has long been known to induce autophagy; how infection triggers this disposal pathway is an active area of research. Autophagy is encountered by many of the intracellular pathogens that are known to trigger pyroptosis, an inflammatory cell death initiated when nucleotide-binding-domain-, leucine-rich-repeat-containing proteins (NLR proteins) activate caspase-1 within inflammasome complexes. Therefore, we tested the hypothesis that NLR proteins and caspase-1 also coordinate autophagy as a barrier to cytosolic infection. By exploiting classical bacterial and mouse genetics and kinetic assays of autophagy, we demonstrate for the first time that, when confronted with cytosolic contamination, primary mouse macrophages rely not only on the NLR proteins NAIP5 and NLRC4 but also on (pro-)caspase-1 protein to mount a rapid autophagic response that wards off proinflammatory cell death.

Inflammasome Components Coordinate Autophagy and Pyroptosis as Macrophage Responses to Infection

Macrophages activate autophagy as an immediate response to Legionella pneumophila infection, but what marks the pathogen phagosome as a target for the autophagy machinery is not known. Because a variety of bacteria, parasites, viruses, and toxins that associate with the endoplasmic reticulum enter host cells by a cholesterol-dependent route, we tested the hypothesis that autophagy is triggered when microbes engage components of lipid raft domains. As the intracellular respiratory pathogen L. pneumophila or the extracellular uropathogen FimH(+) Escherichia coli entered macrophages by a cholesterol-sensitive mechanism, they immediatezly resided in vacuoles rich in glycosylphosphatidylinositol moieties and the autophagy enzyme Atg7. As expected for autophagosomes, the vacuoles sequentially acquired the endoplasmic reticulum protein BiP, the autophagy markers Atg8 and monodansyl-cadaverine, and the lysosomal protein LAMP-1. A robust macrophage response to the pathogens was cholesterol-dependent, since fewer Atg7-rich vacuoles were observed when macrophages were pretreated with methyl-beta-cyclodextrin or filipin. A model in which macrophages exploit autophagy to capture pathogens within the lipid raft pathway for antigen presentation prior to disposal in lysosomes is discussed.

Macrophages rapidly transfer pathogens from lipid raft vacuoles to autophagosomes.

Legionella pneumophila, a parasite of aquatic amoebae and pathogen of pulmonary macrophages, replicates intracellularly, utilizing a type IV secretion system to subvert the trafficking of Legionella-containing phagosomes. Defense against host-derived reactive oxygen species has been proposed as critical for intracellular replication. Virulence traits of null mutants in katA and katB, encoding the two Legionella catalase-peroxidases, were analyzed to evaluate the hypothesis that L. pneumophila must decompose hydrogen peroxide to establish a replication niche in macrophages. Phagosomes containing katA or katB mutant Legionella colocalize with LAMP-1, a late endosomal-lysosomal marker, at twice the frequency of those of wild-type strain JR32 and show a decreased frequency of bacterial replication, in similarity to phenotypes of mutants with mutations in dotA and dotB, encoding components of the Type IV secretion system. Quantitative similarity of the katA/B phenotypes indicates that each contributes to virulence traits largely independently of intracellular compartmentalization (KatA in the periplasm and KatB in the cytosol). These data support a model in which KatA and KatB maintain a critically low level of H(2)O(2) compatible with proper phagosome trafficking mediated by the type IV secretion apparatus. During these studies, we observed that dotA and dotB mutations in wild-type strain Lp02 had no effect on intracellular multiplication in the amoeba Acanthamoeba castellanii, indicating that certain dotA/B functions in Lp02 are dispensable in that experimental model. We also observed that wild-type JR32, unlike Lp02, shows minimal contact-dependent cytotoxicity, suggesting that cytotoxicity of JR32 is not a prerequisite for formation of replication-competent Legionella phagosomes in macrophages.

https://iai.asm.org/content/iai/71/8/4526.full.pdf

Brenda G. Byrne

Papers

Cytosolic recognition of flagellin by mouse macrophages restricts Legionella pneumophila infection

Expression of Legionella pneumophila Virulence Traits in Response to Growth Conditions

Inflammasome Components Coordinate Autophagy and Pyroptosis as Macrophage Responses to Infection

Macrophages rapidly transfer pathogens from lipid raft vacuoles to autophagosomes.

Legionella pneumophila catalase-peroxidases are required for proper trafficking and growth in primary macrophages.