Francesco Vetrini

Bio: Francesco Vetrini is an academic researcher from Indiana University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Exome sequencing & Hypotonia. The author has an hindex of 23, co-authored 41 publications receiving 5082 citations. Previous affiliations of Francesco Vetrini include Baylor College of Medicine & Baylor University.

TFEB links autophagy to lysosomal biogenesis.

Abstract: Autophagy is a cellular catabolic process that relies on the cooperation of autophagosomes and lysosomes. During starvation, the cell expands both compartments to enhance degradation processes. We found that starvation activates a transcriptional program that controls major steps of the autophagic pathway, including autophagosome formation, autophagosome-lysosome fusion, and substrate degradation. The transcription factor EB (TFEB), a master gene for lysosomal biogenesis, coordinated this program by driving expression of autophagy and lysosomal genes. Nuclear localization and activity of TFEB were regulated by serine phosphorylation mediated by the extracellular signal-regulated kinase 2, whose activity was tuned by the levels of extracellular nutrients. Thus, a mitogen-activated protein kinase-dependent mechanism regulates autophagy by controlling the biogenesis and partnership of two distinct cellular organelles.

A lysosome-to-nucleus signalling mechanism senses and regulates the lysosome via mTOR and TFEB

Abstract: The lysosome plays a key role in cellular homeostasis by controlling both cellular clearance and energy production to respond to environmental cues. However, the mechanisms mediating lysosomal adaptation are largely unknown. Here, we show that the Transcription Factor EB (TFEB), a master regulator of lysosomal biogenesis, colocalizes with master growth regulator mTOR complex 1 (mTORC1) on the lysosomal membrane. When nutrients are present, phosphorylation of TFEB by mTORC1 inhibits TFEB activity. Conversely, pharmacological inhibition of mTORC1, as well as starvation and lysosomal disruption, activates TFEB by promoting its nuclear translocation. In addition, the transcriptional response of lysosomal and autophagic genes to either lysosomal dysfunction or pharmacological inhibition of mTORC1 is suppressed in TFEB−/− cells. Interestingly, the Rag GTPase complex, which senses lysosomal amino acids and activates mTORC1, is both necessary and sufficient to regulate starvation- and stress-induced nuclear translocation of TFEB. These data indicate that the lysosome senses its content and regulates its own biogenesis by a lysosome-to-nucleus signalling mechanism that involves TFEB and mTOR.

TFEB controls cellular lipid metabolism through a starvation-induced autoregulatory loop

Abstract: The lysosomal-autophagic pathway is activated by starvation and plays an important role in both cellular clearance and lipid catabolism. However, the transcriptional regulation of this pathway in response to metabolic cues is uncharacterized. Here we show that the transcription factor EB (TFEB), a master regulator of lysosomal biogenesis and autophagy, is induced by starvation through an autoregulatory feedback loop and exerts a global transcriptional control on lipid catabolism via Ppargc1α and Ppar1α. Thus, during starvation a transcriptional mechanism links the autophagic pathway to cellular energy metabolism. The conservation of this mechanism in Caenorhabditis elegans suggests a fundamental role for TFEB in the evolution of the adaptive response to food deprivation. Viral delivery of TFEB to the liver prevented weight gain and metabolic syndrome in both diet-induced and genetic mouse models of obesity, suggesting a new therapeutic strategy for disorders of lipid metabolism.

Use of Exome Sequencing for Infants in Intensive Care Units: Ascertainment of Severe Single-Gene Disorders and Effect on Medical Management

Abstract: Importance While congenital malformations and genetic diseases are a leading cause of early infant death, to our knowledge, the contribution of single-gene disorders in this group is undetermined. Objective To determine the diagnostic yield and use of clinical exome sequencing in critically ill infants. Design, Setting, and Participants Clinical exome sequencing was performed for 278 unrelated infants within the first 100 days of life who were admitted to Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston, Texas, during a 5-year period between December 2011 and January 2017. Exome sequencing types included proband exome, trio exome, and critical trio exome, a rapid genomic assay for seriously ill infants. Main Outcomes and Measures Indications for testing, diagnostic yield of clinical exome sequencing, turnaround time, molecular findings, patient age at diagnosis, and effect on medical management among a group of critically ill infants who were suspected to have genetic disorders. Results The mean (SEM) age for infants participating in the study was 28.5 (1.7) days; of these, the mean (SEM) age was 29.0 (2.2) days for infants undergoing proband exome sequencing, 31.5 (3.9) days for trio exome, and 22.7 (3.9) days for critical trio exome. Clinical indications for exome sequencing included a range of medical concerns. Overall, a molecular diagnosis was achieved in 102 infants (36.7%) by clinical exome sequencing, with relatively low yield for cardiovascular abnormalities. The diagnosis affected medical management for 53 infants (52.0%) and had a substantial effect on informed redirection of care, initiation of new subspecialist care, medication/dietary modifications, and furthering life-saving procedures in select patients. Critical trio exome sequencing revealed a molecular diagnosis in 32 of 63 infants (50.8%) at a mean (SEM) of 33.1 (5.6) days of life with a mean (SEM) turnaround time of 13.0 (0.4) days. Clinical care was altered by the diagnosis in 23 of 32 patients (71.9%). The diagnostic yield, patient age at diagnosis, and medical effect in the group that underwent critical trio exome sequencing were significantly different compared with the group who underwent regular exome testing. For deceased infants (n = 81), genetic disorders were molecularly diagnosed in 39 (48.1%) by exome sequencing, with implications for recurrence risk counseling. Conclusions and Relevance Exome sequencing is a powerful tool for the diagnostic evaluation of critically ill infants with suspected monogenic disorders in the neonatal and pediatric intensive care units and its use has a notable effect on clinical decision making.

Reanalysis of Clinical Exome Sequencing Data

Abstract: Reanalysis of Clinical Exome Data and Diagnostic Yield As knowledge about genetic causes of disease improves, periodic reanalysis of clinical exome sequence could yield new genetic information. Thi...

mTOR Signaling in Growth Control and Disease

Abstract: The mechanistic target of rapamycin (mTOR) signaling pathway senses and integrates a variety of environmental cues to regulate organismal growth and homeostasis. The pathway regulates many major cellular processes and is implicated in an increasing number of pathological conditions, including cancer, obesity, type 2 diabetes, and neurodegeneration. Here, we review recent advances in our understanding of the mTOR pathway and its role in health, disease, and aging. We further discuss pharmacological approaches to treat human pathologies linked to mTOR deregulation.

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

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. 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.