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

Over the past decade, the Nomenclature Committee on Cell Death (NCCD) has formulated guidelines for the definition and interpretation of cell death from morphological, biochemical, and functional perspectives. Since the field continues to expand and novel mechanisms that orchestrate multiple cell death pathways are unveiled, we propose an updated classification of cell death subroutines focusing on mechanistic and essential (as opposed to correlative and dispensable) aspects of the process. As we provide molecularly oriented definitions of terms including intrinsic apoptosis, extrinsic apoptosis, mitochondrial permeability transition (MPT)-driven necrosis, necroptosis, ferroptosis, pyroptosis, parthanatos, entotic cell death, NETotic cell death, lysosome-dependent cell death, autophagy-dependent cell death, immunogenic cell death, cellular senescence, and mitotic catastrophe, we discuss the utility of neologisms that refer to highly specialized instances of these processes. The mission of the NCCD is to provide a widely accepted nomenclature on cell death in support of the continued development of the field.

https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/8555786/file/8555788.pdf

Molecular mechanisms of cell death: recommendations of the Nomenclature Committee on Cell Death 2018.

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

In 2009, the Nomenclature Committee on Cell Death (NCCD) proposed a set of recommendations for the definition of distinct cell death morphologies and for the appropriate use of cell death-related terminology, including 'apoptosis', 'necrosis' and 'mitotic catastrophe'. In view of the substantial progress in the biochemical and genetic exploration of cell death, time has come to switch from morphological to molecular definitions of cell death modalities. Here we propose a functional classification of cell death subroutines that applies to both in vitro and in vivo settings and includes extrinsic apoptosis, caspase-dependent or -independent intrinsic apoptosis, regulated necrosis, autophagic cell death and mitotic catastrophe. Moreover, we discuss the utility of expressions indicating additional cell death modalities. On the basis of the new, revised NCCD classification, cell death subroutines are defined by a series of precise, measurable biochemical features.

/pdf/molecular-definitions-of-cell-death-subroutines-q5g428rlyi.pdf

Molecular definitions of cell death subroutines: recommendations of the Nomenclature Committee on Cell Death 2012

The laws that drive morphogenesis remain a major biological question. Today's views emphasize molecular autonomous processes rather than physical and mechanical constraints proposed by d'Arcy Thompson earlier on. In Ciona intestinalis oocyte, follicular cells formed by two distinct sets of geometrically-ordered epithelial monolayers positioned over the egg control apoptosis, implying that physically-predetermined shapes play a role in the control of cell determinism. In follicular cells ideally positioned over the spherical geometry of the egg, a drastic, optimized and polarized inward apoptosis sequence directly results from this positioning, suggesting the existence of some apoptotic master cells which control the destiny of neighboring cells. This concept could shed a new light on the origin of massive apoptosis phases that take place during embryogenesis in vertebrates (e.g., cavitation, inter-digitation). It could also be applied to specific therapeutic strategies to fight cancer.

/pdf/would-d-arcy-thompson-have-predicted-a-topological-control-4z6ll0cr0p.pdf

[Would D'Arcy Thompson have predicted a topological control of apoptosis?].

Interferon and the 2-5A/Pathway

Introduction Natural and synthetic estrogens are pollutants found in aquatic ecosystems at low concentrations reaching ng.L-1 to μg.L-1. At these concentrations, they are able to interfere with the fish endocrine system. When waterborne exposure occurs at early life stages, when blood estrogens concentrations are low, this may have significant consequences for estrogen-sensitive functions such as skeletal development. Methods To better understand how (xeno)estrogens may affect early head mineralization, 12 days post-hatch larvae of the European seabass Dicentrarchus labrax were experimentally exposed for 4 days to the natural estrogen estradiol E2 and to the xenoestrogen bisphenol A (BPA), both used at either regulatory concentration of water quality or a 100 times higher concentration. Head mineralization level was assessed using Alizarin red staining, together with the relative quantification of mRNA expression levels of several genes playing key roles in skeletogenesis and estrogen signaling pathways. Results We showed that (xeno)estrogen exposure at early larval stage increases the expression of skeleton-associated genes: matrix proteins encoding genes (col1a2, col2a1a, col2a1b, bgp1a, bgp1b, sparc), proteolytic enzyme encoding genes (ctsk) and transcription and signaling factors (sox9a, sox9b, ihha, runx2, rankl). Although transcriptional overexpression of these genes was significant in larvae exposed to 40 ng.L-1 E2 and to 1.6 and 160 μg.L-1 BPA, increased mineralization was detected only in E2-exposed larvae, suggesting a difference in head skeleton development and remodeling in BPA-treated larvae. Discussion Our results suggest that these phenotypic differences could be due to the implication of other estrogenic signaling pathways involving both nuclear and membrane-bound estrogen receptors (ERs and GPERs), but also estrogen-related receptors (ERRs). This study brings new insights into the regulatory mechanisms of skeletogenesis by E2 and BPA and into the effects of waterborne exposure to (xeno)estrogens on the early skeletal development of teleost fishes.

/pdf/short-term-effects-of-estradiol-and-bisphenol-a-on-gene-8swia4be.pdf

Camille Martinand-Mari

Papers

[Would D'Arcy Thompson have predicted a topological control of apoptosis?].

Interferon and the 2-5A/Pathway

Short-term effects of estradiol and bisphenol A on gene expression associated with early head mineralization in the seabass Dicentrarchus labrax