Daping Fan

Bio: Daping Fan is an academic researcher from University of South Carolina. The author has contributed to research in topics: Medicine & Chaperone-mediated autophagy. The author has an hindex of 3, co-authored 3 publications receiving 5081 citations.

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

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.

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

Abstract: 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.

Erratum to: Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition) (Autophagy, 12, 1, 1-222, 10.1080/15548627.2015.1100356

Abstract: Author(s): Klionsky, DJ; Abdelmohsen, K; Abe, A; Abedin, MJ; Abeliovich, H; Arozena, AA; Adachi, H; Adams, CM; Adams, PD; Adeli, K; Adhihetty, PJ; Adler, SG; Agam, G; Agarwal, R; Aghi, MK; Agnello, M; Agostinis, P; Aguilar, PV; Aguirre-Ghiso, J; Airoldi, EM; Ait-Si-Ali, S; Akematsu, T; Akporiaye, ET; Al-Rubeai, M; Albaiceta, GM; Albanese, C; Albani, D; Albert, ML; Aldudo, J; Algul, H; Alirezaei, M; Alloza, I; Almasan, A; Almonte-Beceril, M; Alnemri, ES; Alonso, C; Altan-Bonnet, N; Altieri, DC; Alvarez, S; Alvarez-Erviti, L; Alves, S; Amadoro, G; Amano, A; Amantini, C; Ambrosio, S; Amelio, I; Amer, AO; Amessou, M; Amon, A; An, Z; Anania, FA; Andersen, SU; Andley, UP; Andreadi, CK; Andrieu-Abadie, N; Anel, A; Ann, DK; Anoopkumar-Dukie, S; Antonioli, M; Aoki, H; Apostolova, N; Aquila, S; Aquilano, K; Araki, K; Arama, E; Aranda, A; Araya, J; Arcaro, A; Arias, E; Arimoto, H; Ariosa, AR; Armstrong, JL; Arnould, T; Arsov, I; Asanuma, K; Askanas, V; Asselin, E; Atarashi, R; Atherton, SS; Atkin, JD; Attardi, LD; Auberger, P; Auburger, G; Aurelian, L; Autelli, R

Identification and Biosynthesis of Pro-Inflammatory Sulfonolipids from an Opportunistic Pathogen Chryseobacterium gleum.

Abstract: Sulfonolipids (SoLs) are a unique class of sphingolipids featuring a sulfonate group compared to other sphingolipids. However, the biological functions and biosynthesis of SoLs in human microbiota have been poorly understood. Here, we report the discovery and isolation of SoLs from a human opportunistic pathogen Chryseobacterium gleum DSM16776. We show for the first time the pro-inflammatory activity of SoLs with mice primary macrophages. Furthermore, we used both in vivo heterologous expression and in vitro biochemical reconstitution to characterize two enzymes, cysteate synthase and cysteate fatty acyltransferase, that are specifically involved in the biosynthesis of SoLs rather than other sphingolipids. Based on these two SoL-specific enzymes, our bioinformatics analysis showed a wider distribution of SoL biosynthetic genes in microbes that had not been reported as SoL producers. We selected four of these strains and verified their cysteate synthase and cysteate fatty acyltransferase activities in SoL biosynthesis. Considering this wider distribution of SoL-specific biosynthetic enzymes in the context of SoLs' activity in mediating inflammation, a common and fundamental biological process, it may suggest a more comprehensive function of SoLs at play.

A novel circ_MACF1/miR-942-5p/TGFBR2 axis regulates the functional behaviors and drug sensitivity in gefitinib-resistant non-small cell lung cancer cells

Abstract: Resistance to gefitinib remains a major obstacle for the successful treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations. In this paper, we studied the precise actions of circular RNA (circRNA) microtubule actin crosslinking factor 1 (circ_MACF1) in gefitinib resistance.We established gefitinib-resistant NSCLC cells (PC9/GR and A549/GR). The levels of circ_MACF1, microRNA (miR)-942-5p, and transforming growth factor beta receptor 2 (TGFBR2) were gauged by quantitative real-time PCR (qRT-PCR) or western blot. Subcellular fractionation and Ribonuclease R (RNase R) assays were done to characterize circ_MACF1. Cell survival, proliferation, colony formation, apoptosis, migration, and invasion were detected by 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide (MTT), 5-Ethynyl-2'-Deoxyuridine (EdU), colony formation, flow cytometry, and transwell assays, respectively. Dual-luciferase reporter assays were used to verify the direct relationship between miR-942-5p and circ_MACF1 or TGFBR2. The xenograft assays were used to assess the role of circ_MACF1 in vivo.Circ_MACF1 was down-regulated in A549/GR and PC9/GR cells. Overexpression of circ_MACF1 repressed proliferation, migration, invasion, and promoted apoptosis and gefitinib sensitivity of A549/GR and PC9/GR cells in vitro, as well as inhibited tumor growth under gefitinib in vivo. Circ_MACF1 directly targeted miR-942-5p, and miR-942-5p mediated the regulatory effects of circ_MACF1. TGFBR2 was identified as a direct and functional target of miR-942-5p. Circ_MACF1 modulated TGFBR2 expression through miR-942-5p.Our findings demonstrated that circ_MACF1 regulated cell functional behaviors and gefitinib sensitivity of A549/GR and PC9/GR cells at least partially by targeting miR-942-5p to induce TGFBR2 expression.

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

Abstract: 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.

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

Abstract: 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.

Targeting autophagy in cancer

Abstract: Autophagy is a mechanism by which cellular material is delivered to lysosomes for degradation, leading to the basal turnover of cell components and providing energy and macromolecular precursors. Autophagy has opposing, context-dependent roles in cancer, and interventions to both stimulate and inhibit autophagy have been proposed as cancer therapies. This has led to the therapeutic targeting of autophagy in cancer to be sometimes viewed as controversial. In this Review, we suggest a way forwards for the effective targeting of autophagy by understanding the context-dependent roles of autophagy and by capitalizing on modern approaches to clinical trial design.

Chloroquine inhibits autophagic flux by decreasing autophagosome-lysosome fusion.

Abstract: Macroautophagy/autophagy is a conserved transport pathway where targeted structures are sequestered by phagophores, which mature into autophagosomes, and then delivered into lysosomes for degradati...

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

Abstract: 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.