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

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field.

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)

http://gene-quantification.net/cocucci-meldolesi-exosomes-ectosomes-2015.pdf

Ectosomes and exosomes: shedding the confusion between extracellular vesicles

The term 'extracellular vesicles' refers to a heterogeneous population of vesicular bodies of cellular origin that derive either from the endosomal compartment (exosomes) or as a result of shedding from the plasma membrane (microvesicles, oncosomes and apoptotic bodies). Extracellular vesicles carry a variety of cargo, including RNAs, proteins, lipids and DNA, which can be taken up by other cells, both in the direct vicinity of the source cell and at distant sites in the body via biofluids, and elicit a variety of phenotypic responses. Owing to their unique biology and roles in cell-cell communication, extracellular vesicles have attracted strong interest, which is further enhanced by their potential clinical utility. Because extracellular vesicles derive their cargo from the contents of the cells that produce them, they are attractive sources of biomarkers for a variety of diseases. Furthermore, studies demonstrating phenotypic effects of specific extracellular vesicle-associated cargo on target cells have stoked interest in extracellular vesicles as therapeutic vehicles. There is particularly strong evidence that the RNA cargo of extracellular vesicles can alter recipient cell gene expression and function. During the past decade, extracellular vesicles and their RNA cargo have become better defined, but many aspects of extracellular vesicle biology remain to be elucidated. These include selective cargo loading resulting in substantial differences between the composition of extracellular vesicles and source cells; heterogeneity in extracellular vesicle size and composition; and undefined mechanisms for the uptake of extracellular vesicles into recipient cells and the fates of their cargo. Further progress in unravelling the basic mechanisms of extracellular vesicle biogenesis, transport, and cargo delivery and function is needed for successful clinical implementation. This Review focuses on the current state of knowledge pertaining to packaging, transport and function of RNAs in extracellular vesicles and outlines the progress made thus far towards their clinical applications.

/pdf/rna-delivery-by-extracellular-vesicles-in-mammalian-cells-pub81smyc0.pdf

RNA delivery by extracellular vesicles in mammalian cells and its applications.

More than two hundred years after its discovery, lactate still remains an intriguing molecule. Considered for a long time as a waste product of metabolism and the culprit behind muscular fatigue, it was then recognized as an important fuel for many cells. In particular, in the nervous system, it has been proposed that lactate, released by astrocytes in response to neuronal activation, is taken up by neurons, oxidized to pyruvate and used for synthesizing acetyl-CoA to be used for the tricarboxylic acid cycle. More recently, in addition to this metabolic role, the discovery of a specific receptor prompted a reconsideration of its role, and lactate is now seen as a sort of hormone, even involved in processes as complex as memory formation and neuroprotection. As a matter of fact, exercise offers many benefits for our organisms, and seems to delay brain aging and neurodegeneration. Now, exercise induces the production and release of lactate into the blood which can reach the liver, the heart, and also the brain. Can lactate be a beneficial molecule produced during exercise, and offer neuroprotection? In this review, we summarize what we have known on lactate, discussing the roles that have been attributed to this molecule over time.

/pdf/lactate-as-a-metabolite-and-a-regulator-in-the-central-dka5a0nl0h.pdf

Lactate as a Metabolite and a Regulator in the Central Nervous System.

Physical activity (PA) has been central in the life of our species for most of its history, and thus shaped our physiology during evolution. However, only recently the health consequences of a sedentary lifestyle, and of highly energetic diets, are becoming clear. It has been also acknowledged that lifestyle and diet can induce epigenetic modifications which modify chromatin structure and gene expression, thus causing even heritable metabolic outcomes. Many studies have shown that PA can reverse at least some of the unwanted effects of sedentary lifestyle, and can also contribute in delaying brain aging and degenerative pathologies such as Alzheimer’s Disease, diabetes, and multiple sclerosis. Most importantly, PA improves cognitive processes and memory, has analgesic and antidepressant effects, and even induces a sense of wellbeing, giving strength to the ancient principle of “mens sana in corpore sano” (i.e., a sound mind in a sound body). In this review we will discuss the potential mechanisms underlying the effects of PA on brain health, focusing on hormones, neurotrophins, and neurotransmitters, the release of which is modulated by PA, as well as on the intra- and extra-cellular pathways that regulate the expression of some of the genes involved.

Physical Activity and Brain Health

Post-transcriptional control of mRNA trafficking and metabolism plays a critical role in the actualization and fine tuning of the genetic program of cells, both in development and in differentiated tissues. Cis-acting signals, responsible for post-transcriptional regulation, reside in the RNA message itself, usually in untranslated regions, 5' or 3' to the coding sequence, and are recognized by trans-acting factors: RNA-binding proteins (RBPs) and/or non-coding RNAs (ncRNAs). ncRNAs bind short mRNA sequences usually present in the 3'-untranslated (3'-UTR) region of their target messages. RBPs recognize specific nucleotide sequences and/or secondary/tertiary structures. Most RBPs assemble on mRNA at the moment of transcription and shepherd it to its destination, somehow determining its final fate. Regulation of mRNA localization and metabolism has a particularly important role in the nervous system where local translation of pre-localized mRNAs has been implicated in developing axon and dendrite pathfinding, and in synapse formation. Moreover, activity-dependent mRNA trafficking and local translation may underlie long-lasting changes in synaptic efficacy, responsible for learning and memory. This review focuses on the role of RBPs in neuronal development and plasticity, as well as possible connections between ncRNAs and RBPs.

https://www.spandidos-publications.com/10.3892/ijmm.2014.1629/download

Regulation of mRNA transport, localization and translation in the nervous system of mammals (Review)

Brain primary tumors are among the most diverse and complex human cancers, and they are normally classified on the basis of the cell-type and/or the grade of malignancy (the most malignant being glioblastoma multiforme (GBM), grade IV). Glioma cells are able to migrate throughout the brain and to stimulate angiogenesis, by inducing brain capillary endothelial cell proliferation. This in turn causes loss of tight junctions and fragility of the blood–brain barrier, which becomes leaky. As a consequence, the most serious clinical complication of glioblastoma is the vasogenic brain edema. Both glioma cell migration and edema have been correlated with modification of the expression/localization of different isoforms of aquaporins (AQPs), a family of water channels, some of which are also involved in the transport of other small molecules, such as glycerol and urea. In this review, we discuss relationships among expression/localization of AQPs and brain tumors/edema, also focusing on the possible role of these molecules as both diagnostic biomarkers of cancer progression, and therapeutic targets. Finally, we will discuss the possibility that AQPs, together with other cancer promoting factors, can be exchanged among brain cells via extracellular vesicles (EVs).

Aquaporins and Brain Tumors

Extracellular vesicles are involved in a great variety of physiological events occurring in the nervous system, such as cross talk among neurons and glial cells in synapse development and function, integrated neuronal plasticity, neuronal-glial metabolic exchanges, and synthesis and dynamic renewal of myelin. Many of these EV-mediated processes depend on the exchange of proteins, mRNAs, and noncoding RNAs, including miRNAs, which occurs among glial and neuronal cells. In addition, production and exchange of EVs can be modified under pathological conditions, such as brain cancer and neurodegeneration. Like other cancer cells, brain tumours can use EVs to secrete factors, which allow escaping from immune surveillance, and to transfer molecules into the surrounding cells, thus transforming their phenotype. Moreover, EVs can function as a way to discard material dangerous to cancer cells, such as differentiation-inducing proteins, and even drugs. Intriguingly, EVs seem to be also involved in spreading through the brain of aggregated proteins, such as prions and aggregated tau protein. Finally, EVs can carry useful biomarkers for the early diagnosis of diseases. Herein we summarize possible roles of EVs in brain physiological functions and discuss their involvement in the horizontal spreading, from cell to cell, of both cancer and neurodegenerative pathologies.

/pdf/extracellular-membrane-vesicles-as-vehicles-for-brain-cell-48v3s1qlal.pdf

Carlo Maria Di Liegro

Papers

Lactate as a Metabolite and a Regulator in the Central Nervous System.

Physical Activity and Brain Health

Regulation of mRNA transport, localization and translation in the nervous system of mammals (Review)

Aquaporins and Brain Tumors

Extracellular Membrane Vesicles as Vehicles for Brain Cell-to-Cell Interactions in Physiological as well as Pathological Conditions.