scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

Guido R.Y. De Meyer

Bio: Guido R.Y. De Meyer is an academic researcher from University of Antwerp. The author has contributed to research in topics: Autophagy & Programmed cell death. The author has an hindex of 49, co-authored 214 publications receiving 13932 citations.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
Daniel J. Klionsky1, Kotb Abdelmohsen2, Akihisa Abe3, Joynal Abedin4  +2519 moreInstitutions (695)
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

Journal ArticleDOI
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

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: It is demonstrated that phagocytosis of ACs is impaired in atherosclerotic plaques, which is at least partly attributed to oxidative stress and cytoplasmic saturation with indigestible material.
Abstract: Objective— Apoptotic cell death has been demonstrated in advanced human atherosclerotic plaques. Apoptotic cells (ACs) should be rapidly removed by macrophages, otherwise secondary necrosis occurs, which in turn elicits inflammatory responses and plaque progression. Therefore, we investigated the efficiency of phagocytosis of ACs by macrophages in atherosclerosis. Methods and Results— Human endarterectomy specimens and human tonsils were costained for CD68 (macrophages) and terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase-mediated dUTP nick end-labeling (TUNEL) (apoptosis). Free and phagocytized ACs were counted in both tissues. The ratio of free versus phagocytized AC was 19-times higher in human atherosclerotic plaques as compared with human tonsils, indicating a severe defect in clearance of AC. Impaired phagocytosis of AC was also detected in plaques from cholesterol-fed rabbits and did not further change with plaque progression. In vitro experiments with J774 or peritoneal mouse macrophages showed that several factors caused impaired phagocytosis of AC including cytoplasmic overload of macrophages with indigestible material (beads), free radical attack, and competitive inhibition among oxidized red blood cells, oxidized low-density lipoprotein and ACs for the same receptor(s) on the macrophage. Conclusion— Our data demonstrate that phagocytosis of ACs is impaired in atherosclerotic plaques, which is at least partly attributed to oxidative stress and cytoplasmic saturation with indigestible material.

439 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: It is concluded that SMCs within human fatty streaks express BAX, which increases the susceptibility of these cells to undergo apoptosis, which could be important in the understanding of the transition of fatty streaks into atherosclerotic plaques, which are characterized by regions of cell death.
Abstract: Background—The transition of a fatty streak into an atherosclerotic plaque is characterized by the appearance of focal and diffuse regions of cell death. We have investigated the distribution of apoptotic cell death and apoptosis-related proteins in early and advanced atherosclerotic lesions. Methods and Results—Human atherosclerotic plaques were studied by whole-mount carotid endarterectomy specimens (n=18). This approach allowed comparison of adaptive intimal thickenings, fatty streaks, and advanced atherosclerotic plaques of the same patient. The fatty streaks differed from adaptive intimal thickenings by the presence of BAX (P<0.01), a proapoptotic protein of the BCL-2 family. Both regions were composed mainly of smooth muscle cells (SMCs), and macrophage infiltration was low and not different. Apoptosis, as detected by DNA in situ end labeling (terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase end labeling [TUNEL] and in situ nick translation) was not present in these regions. Apoptosis of SMCs and macrophages, ...

428 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Evidence is provided that oxidative DNA damage and repair increase significantly in human atherosclerotic plaques and this is accompanied by the upregulation of DNA repair mechanisms.
Abstract: Background— The formation of reactive oxygen species is a critical event in atherosclerosis because it promotes cell proliferation, hypertrophy, growth arrest, and/or apoptosis and oxidation of LDL. In the present study, we investigated whether reactive oxygen species-induced oxidative damage to DNA occurs in human atherosclerotic plaques and whether this is accompanied by the upregulation of DNA repair mechanisms. Methods and Results— We observed increased immunoreactivity against the oxidative DNA damage marker 7,8-dihydro-8-oxo-2′-deoxyguanosine (8-oxo-dG) in plaques of the carotid artery compared with the adjacent inner media and nonatherosclerotic mammary arteries. Strong 8-oxo-dG immunoreactivity was found in all cell types of the plaque including macrophages, smooth muscle cells, and endothelial cells. As shown by competitive ELISA, carotid plaques contained 160±29 8-oxo-dG residues/105 dG versus 3±1 8-oxo-dG residues/105 dG in mammary arteries. Single-cell gel electrophoresis showed elevated level...

405 citations


Cited by
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI

[...]

08 Dec 2001-BMJ
TL;DR: There is, I think, something ethereal about i —the square root of minus one, which seems an odd beast at that time—an intruder hovering on the edge of reality.
Abstract: There is, I think, something ethereal about i —the square root of minus one. I remember first hearing about it at school. It seemed an odd beast at that time—an intruder hovering on the edge of reality. Usually familiarity dulls this sense of the bizarre, but in the case of i it was the reverse: over the years the sense of its surreal nature intensified. It seemed that it was impossible to write mathematics that described the real world in …

33,785 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Current evidence indicates that most of the cytotoxicity attributed to NO is rather due to peroxynitrite, produced from the diffusion-controlled reaction between NO and another free radical, the superoxide anion, which is presented in detail in this review.
Abstract: The discovery that mammalian cells have the ability to synthesize the free radical nitric oxide (NO) has stimulated an extraordinary impetus for scientific research in all the fields of biology and medicine. Since its early description as an endothelial-derived relaxing factor, NO has emerged as a fundamental signaling device regulating virtually every critical cellular function, as well as a potent mediator of cellular damage in a wide range of conditions. Recent evidence indicates that most of the cytotoxicity attributed to NO is rather due to peroxynitrite, produced from the diffusion-controlled reaction between NO and another free radical, the superoxide anion. Peroxynitrite interacts with lipids, DNA, and proteins via direct oxidative reactions or via indirect, radical-mediated mechanisms. These reactions trigger cellular responses ranging from subtle modulations of cell signaling to overwhelming oxidative injury, committing cells to necrosis or apoptosis. In vivo, peroxynitrite generation represents a crucial pathogenic mechanism in conditions such as stroke, myocardial infarction, chronic heart failure, diabetes, circulatory shock, chronic inflammatory diseases, cancer, and neurodegenerative disorders. Hence, novel pharmacological strategies aimed at removing peroxynitrite might represent powerful therapeutic tools in the future. Evidence supporting these novel roles of NO and peroxynitrite is presented in detail in this review.

5,514 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
Daniel J. Klionsky1, Kotb Abdelmohsen2, Akihisa Abe3, Joynal Abedin4  +2519 moreInstitutions (695)
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

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: These guidelines are presented 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.
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.

4,316 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
François Mach, Colin Baigent, Alberico L. Catapano, Konstantinos C. Koskinas1, Manuela Casula, Lina Badimon1, M. John Chapman, Guy De Backer, Victoria Delgado, Brian A. Ference, Ian D. Graham, Alison Halliday, Ulf Landmesser, Borislava Mihaylova, Terje R. Pedersen, Gabriele Riccardi, Dimitrios J. Richter, Marc S. Sabatine, Marja-Riitta Taskinen, Lale Tokgozoglu, Olov Wiklund, Christian Mueller, Heinz Drexel, Victor Aboyans, Alberto Corsini, Wolfram Doehner, Michel Farnier, Bruna Gigante, Meral Kayıkçıoğlu, Goran Krstacic, Ekaterini Lambrinou, Basil S. Lewis, Josep Masip, Philippe Moulin, Steffen E. Petersen, Anna Sonia Petronio, Massimo F Piepoli, Xavier Pintó, Lorenz Räber, Kausik K. Ray, Željko Reiner, Walter F Riesen, Marco Roffi, Jean-Paul Schmid, Evgeny Shlyakhto, Iain A. Simpson, Erik S.G. Stroes, Isabella Sudano, Alexandros D Tselepis, Margus Viigimaa, Cecile Vindis, Alexander Vonbank, Michal Vrablik, Mislav Vrsalovic, José Luis Zamorano, Jean-Philippe Collet, Stephan Windecker, Veronica Dean, Donna Fitzsimons, Chris P Gale, Diederick E. Grobbee, Sigrun Halvorsen, Gerhard Hindricks, Bernard Iung, Peter Jüni, Hugo A. Katus, Christophe Leclercq, Maddalena Lettino, Béla Merkely, Miguel Sousa-Uva, Rhian M. Touyz, Djamaleddine Nibouche, Parounak H. Zelveian, Peter Siostrzonek, Ruslan Najafov, Philippe van de Borne, Belma Pojskic, Arman Postadzhiyan, Lambros Kypris, Jindřich Špinar, Mogens Lytken Larsen, Hesham Salah Eldin, Timo E. Strandberg, Jean Ferrières, Rusudan Agladze, Ulrich Laufs, Loukianos S. Rallidis, Laszlo Bajnok, Thorbjorn Gudjonsson, Vincent Maher, Yaakov Henkin, Michele Massimo Gulizia, Aisulu Mussagaliyeva, Gani Bajraktari, Alina Kerimkulova, Gustavs Latkovskis, Omar Hamoui, Rimvydas Šlapikas, Laurent Visser, P. Dingli, Victoria Ivanov, Aneta Boskovic, Mbarek Nazzi, Frank L.J. Visseren, Irena Mitevska, Kjetil Retterstøl, Piotr Jankowski, Ricardo Fontes-Carvalho, Dan Gaita, Marat V. Ezhov, Marina Foscoli, Vojislav Giga, Daniel Pella, Zlatko Fras, Leopoldo Pérez de Isla, Emil Hagström, Roger Lehmann, Leila Abid, Oner Ozdogan, Olena Mitchenko, Riyaz S. Patel 

4,069 citations