Author
Fatima Teixeira-Clerc
Other affiliations: Paris 12 Val de Marne University, French Institute of Health and Medical Research, University of Paris-Est
Bio: Fatima Teixeira-Clerc is an academic researcher from University of Paris. The author has contributed to research in topics: Cannabinoid receptor type 2 & Cannabinoid receptor. The author has an hindex of 23, co-authored 35 publications receiving 8180 citations. Previous affiliations of Fatima Teixeira-Clerc include Paris 12 Val de Marne University & French Institute of Health and Medical Research.
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
••
Daniel J. Klionsky1, Amal Kamal Abdel-Aziz2, Sara Abdelfatah3, Mahmoud Abdellatif4 +2980 more•Institutions (777)
TL;DR: In this article, the authors 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.
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.
1,129 citations
••
TL;DR: The study shows that CB1 receptor antagonists hold promise for the treatment of liver fibrosis, and suggests that endocannabinoids may drive both CB2-mediated antifibrogenic effects andCB2-independent profibrogenics effects.
Abstract: Hepatic fibrosis, the common response associated with chronic liver diseases, ultimately leads to cirrhosis, a major public health problem worldwide. We recently showed that activation of hepatic cannabinoid CB2 receptors limits progression of experimental liver fibrosis. We also found that during the course of chronic hepatitis C, daily cannabis use is an independent predictor of fibrosis progression. Overall, these results suggest that endocannabinoids may drive both CB2-mediated antifibrogenic effects and CB2-independent profibrogenic effects. Here we investigated whether activation of cannabinoid CB1 receptors (encoded by Cnr1) promotes progression of fibrosis. CB1 receptors were highly induced in human cirrhotic samples and in liver fibrogenic cells. Treatment with the CB1 receptor antagonist SR141716A decreased the wound-healing response to acute liver injury and inhibited progression of fibrosis in three models of chronic liver injury. We saw similar changes in Cnr1-/- mice as compared to wild-type mice. Genetic or pharmacological inactivation of CB1 receptors decreased fibrogenesis by lowering hepatic transforming growth factor (TGF)-beta1 and reducing accumulation of fibrogenic cells in the liver after apoptosis and growth inhibition of hepatic myofibroblasts. In conclusion, our study shows that CB1 receptor antagonists hold promise for the treatment of liver fibrosis.
501 citations
••
TL;DR: These data constitute the first demonstration that CB2 receptors are highly up-regulated in the cirrhotic liver, predominantly in hepatic fibrogenic cells and highlight the antifibrogenic role of CB2 receptor during chronic liver injury.
456 citations
••
TL;DR: It is suggested that promoting M2‐induced M1 KC apoptosis might prove a relevant strategy to limit alcohol‐ and high fat‐induced inflammation and hepatocyte injury.
430 citations
Cited by
More filters
••
Lorenzo Galluzzi1, Lorenzo Galluzzi2, Ilio Vitale3, Stuart A. Aaronson4 +183 more•Institutions (111)
TL;DR: The Nomenclature Committee on Cell Death (NCCD) has formulated guidelines for the definition and interpretation of cell death from morphological, biochemical, and functional perspectives.
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.
3,301 citations
••
TL;DR: Clinical and translational implications of these advances have become clear, and have begun to impact significantly on the management and outlook of patients with chronic liver disease.
2,421 citations
••
TL;DR: The hepatic stellate cell has surprised and engaged physiologists, pathologists, and hepatologists for over 130 years, yet clear evidence of its role in hepatic injury and fibrosis only emerged following the refinement of methods for its isolation and characterization.
Abstract: The hepatic stellate cell has surprised and engaged physiologists, pathologists, and hepatologists for over 130 years, yet clear evidence of its role in hepatic injury and fibrosis only emerged following the refinement of methods for its isolation and characterization. The paradigm in liver injury of activation of quiescent vitamin A-rich stellate cells into proliferative, contractile, and fibrogenic myofibroblasts has launched an era of astonishing progress in understanding the mechanistic basis of hepatic fibrosis progression and regression. But this simple paradigm has now yielded to a remarkably broad appreciation of the cell's functions not only in liver injury, but also in hepatic development, regeneration, xenobiotic responses, intermediary metabolism, and immunoregulation. Among the most exciting prospects is that stellate cells are essential for hepatic progenitor cell amplification and differentiation. Equally intriguing is the remarkable plasticity of stellate cells, not only in their variable intermediate filament phenotype, but also in their functions. Stellate cells can be viewed as the nexus in a complex sinusoidal milieu that requires tightly regulated autocrine and paracrine cross-talk, rapid responses to evolving extracellular matrix content, and exquisite responsiveness to the metabolic needs imposed by liver growth and repair. Moreover, roles vital to systemic homeostasis include their storage and mobilization of retinoids, their emerging capacity for antigen presentation and induction of tolerance, as well as their emerging relationship to bone marrow-derived cells. As interest in this cell type intensifies, more surprises and mysteries are sure to unfold that will ultimately benefit our understanding of liver physiology and the diagnosis and treatment of liver disease.
2,419 citations
••
French Institute of Health and Medical Research1, Institut Gustave Roussy2, University of Paris-Sud3, 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, University of Adelaide14, South Australia Pathology15, 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