Author
Eileen White
Other affiliations: University of Tokyo, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, Howard Hughes Medical Institute ...read more
Bio: Eileen White is an academic researcher from Rutgers University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Autophagy & Programmed cell death. The author has an hindex of 95, co-authored 226 publications receiving 44992 citations. Previous affiliations of Eileen White include University of Tokyo & University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey.
Topics: Autophagy, Programmed cell death, Apoptosis, Cancer, Carcinogenesis
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
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
••
French Institute of Health and Medical Research1, University of Paris-Sud2, Institut Gustave Roussy3, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center4, Thomas Jefferson University5, University of Massachusetts Medical School6, Roswell Park Cancer Institute7, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine8, Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center9, Goethe University Frankfurt10, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital11, University of Zurich12, University College London13, South Australia Pathology14, University of Adelaide15, Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research16, University of Graz17, Istituto Superiore di Sanità18, University of Michigan19, Northwestern University20, University of Rome Tor Vergata21, University of Cambridge22, University of Bern23, Ghent University24, Harvard University25, Karolinska Institutet26, University of Leicester27
TL;DR: A functional classification of cell death subroutines is proposed that applies to both in vitro and in vivo settings and includes extrinsic apoptosis, caspase-dependent or -independent intrinsic programmed cell death, regulated necrosis, autophagic cell death and mitotic catastrophe.
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.
2,238 citations
••
TL;DR: Evidence suggests that autophagy provides a protective function to limit tumour necrosis and inflammation, and to mitigate genome damage in tumour cells in response to metabolic stress.
Abstract: Autophagy is a cellular degradation pathway for the clearance of damaged or superfluous proteins and organelles. The recycling of these intracellular constituents also serves as an alternative energy source during periods of metabolic stress to maintain homeostasis and viability. In tumour cells with defects in apoptosis, autophagy allows prolonged survival. Paradoxically, autophagy defects are associated with increased tumorigenesis, but the mechanism behind this has not been determined. Recent evidence suggests that autophagy provides a protective function to limit tumour necrosis and inflammation, and to mitigate genome damage in tumour cells in response to metabolic stress.
2,016 citations
••
TL;DR: Limiting autophagy under conditions of nutrient limitation can restore cell death to apoptosis-refractory tumors, but this necrosis is associated with inflammation and accelerated tumor growth.
1,888 citations
••
TL;DR: A powerful promoter of metabolic homeostasis at both the cellular and whole-animal level, autophagy prevents degenerative diseases and does have a downside, however—cancer cells exploit it to survive in nutrient-poor tumors.
Abstract: Autophagy is a process of self-cannibalization Cells capture their own cytoplasm and organelles and consume them in lysosomes The resulting breakdown products are inputs to cellular metabolism, through which they are used to generate energy and to build new proteins and membranes Autophagy preserves the health of cells and tissues by replacing outdated and damaged cellular components with fresh ones In starvation, it provides an internal source of nutrients for energy generation and, thus, survival A powerful promoter of metabolic homeostasis at both the cellular and whole-animal level, autophagy prevents degenerative diseases It does have a downside, however—cancer cells exploit it to survive in nutrient-poor tumors
1,669 citations
Cited by
More filters
••
TL;DR: Recognition of the widespread applicability of these concepts will increasingly affect the development of new means to treat human cancer.
51,099 citations
••
10,451 citations
••
TL;DR: The principal mechanisms that govern the effects of inflammation and immunity on tumor development are outlined and attractive new targets for cancer therapy and prevention are discussed.
8,664 citations
••
TL;DR: The author regrets the lack of citations for many important observations mentioned in the text, but their omission is made necessary by restrictions in the preparation of review manuscripts.
7,653 citations
••
TL;DR: The basic components of the death machinery are reviewed, how they interact to regulate apoptosis in a coordinated manner is described, and the main pathways that are used to activate cell death are discussed.
Abstract: Apoptosis - the regulated destruction of a cell - is a complicated process. The decision to die cannot be taken lightly, and the activity of many genes influence a cell's likelihood of activating its self-destruction programme. Once the decision is taken, proper execution of the apoptotic programme requires the coordinated activation and execution of multiple subprogrammes. Here I review the basic components of the death machinery, describe how they interact to regulate apoptosis in a coordinated manner, and discuss the main pathways that are used to activate cell death.
7,255 citations