scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

Heinz Jungbluth

Bio: Heinz Jungbluth is an academic researcher from King's College London. The author has contributed to research in topics: RYR1 & Congenital myopathy. The author has an hindex of 57, co-authored 211 publications receiving 13707 citations. Previous affiliations of Heinz Jungbluth include University College London & Hammersmith Hospital.


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: The present study represents the first identification of a gene responsible for classical MmD, demonstrates its genetic heterogeneity, and reassesses the nosological boundaries between Mmd and RSMD.
Abstract: Multiminicore disease (MmD) is an autosomal recessive congenital myopathy characterized by the presence of multiple, short core lesions (known as "minicores") in most muscle fibers. MmD is a clinically heterogeneous condition, in which four subgroups have been distinguished. Homozygous RYR1 mutations have been recently identified in the moderate form of MmD with hand involvement. The genes responsible for the three other forms (including the most prevalent phenotype, termed the "classical" phenotype) remained, so far, unknown. To further characterize the genetic basis of MmD, we analyzed a series of 62 patients through a combined positional/candidate-gene approach. On the basis of clinical and morphological data, we suspected a relationship between classical MmD and the selenoprotein N gene (SEPN1), which is located on chromosome 1p36 (RSMD1 locus) and is responsible for the congenital muscular dystrophy with rigid spine syndrome (RSMD). A genomewide screening, followed by the analysis of 1p36 microsatellite markers in 27 informative families with MmD, demonstrated linkage to RSMD1 in eight families. All showed an axial myopathy with scoliosis and respiratory failure, consistent with the most severe end of the classical MmD spectrum; spinal rigidity was evident in some, but not all, patients. We excluded linkage to RSMD1 in 19 families with MmD, including 9 with classical MmD. Screening of SEPN1 in the 8 families that showed linkage and in 14 patients with classical sporadic disease disclosed 9 mutations affecting 17 patients (12 families); 6 were novel mutations, and 3 had been described in patients with RSMD. Analysis of three deltoid biopsy specimens from patients with typical RSMD revealed a wide myopathological variability, ranging from a dystrophic to a congenital myopathy pattern. A variable proportion of minicores was found in all the samples. The present study represents the first identification of a gene responsible for classical MmD, demonstrates its genetic heterogeneity, and reassesses the nosological boundaries between MmD and RSMD.

306 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Whereas the X-linked form due to MTM1 mutations is often fatal in infancy, dominant forms due to DNM2 mutations and some cases of the recessive BIN1-related form appear to be associated with an overall more favourable prognosis.
Abstract: Centronuclear myopathy (CNM) is an inherited neuromuscular disorder characterised by clinical features of a congenital myopathy and centrally placed nuclei on muscle biopsy.The incidence of X-linked myotubular myopathy is estimated at 2/100000 male births but epidemiological data for other forms are not currently available.The clinical picture is highly variable. The X-linked form usually gives rise to a severe phenotype in males presenting at birth with marked weakness and hypotonia, external ophthalmoplegia and respiratory failure. Signs of antenatal onset comprise reduced foetal movements, polyhydramnios and thinning of the ribs on chest radiographs; birth asphyxia may be the present. Affected infants are often macrosomic, with length above the 90th centile and large head circumference. Testes are frequently undescended. Both autosomal-recessive (AR) and autosomal-dominant (AD) forms differ from the X-linked form regarding age at onset, severity, clinical characteristics and prognosis. In general, AD forms have a later onset and milder course than the X-linked form, and the AR form is intermediate in both respects.Mutations in the myotubularin (MTM1) gene on chromosome Xq28 have been identified in the majority of patients with the X-linked recessive form, whilst AD and AR forms have been associated with mutations in the dynamin 2 (DNM2) gene on chromosome 19p13.2 and the amphiphysin 2 (BIN1) gene on chromosome 2q14, respectively. Single cases with features of CNM have been associated with mutations in the skeletal muscle ryanodine receptor (RYR1) and the hJUMPY (MTMR14) genes.Diagnosis is based on typical histopathological findings on muscle biopsy in combination with suggestive clinical features; muscle magnetic resonance imaging may complement clinical assessment and inform genetic testing in cases with equivocal features. Genetic counselling should be offered to all patients and families in whom a diagnosis of CNM has been made.The main differential diagnoses include congenital myotonic dystrophy and other conditions with severe neonatal hypotonia.Management of CNM is mainly supportive, based on a multidisciplinary approach. Whereas the X-linked form due to MTM1 mutations is often fatal in infancy, dominant forms due to DNM2 mutations and some cases of the recessive BIN1-related form appear to be associated with an overall more favourable prognosis.

261 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This work investigated whether RYR1 mutations cause CNM, a rare congenital myopathy characterized by prominence of central nuclei on muscle biopsy that has been associated with mutations in MTM1, DNM2, and BIN1.
Abstract: Objective: Centronuclear myopathy (CNM) is a rare congenital myopathy characterized by prominence of central nuclei on muscle biopsy. CNM has been associated with mutations in MTM1, DNM2, and BIN1 but many cases remain genetically unresolved. RYR1 encodes the principal sarcoplasmic reticulum calcium release channel and has been implicated in various congenital myopathies. We investigated whether RYR1 mutations cause CNM. Methods: We sequenced the entire RYR1 coding sequence in 24 patients with a diagnosis of CNM from South Africa (n ¼ 14) and Europe (n ¼ 10) and identified mutations in 17 patients. The most common genotypes featured compound heterozygosity for RYR1 missense mutations and mutations resulting in reduced protein expression, including intronic splice site and frameshift mutations. Results: The high incidence in South African patients (n ¼ 12/14) in conjunction with recurrent RYR1 mutations associated with common haplotypes suggested the presence of founder effects. In addition to central nuclei, prominent histopathological findings included (often multiple) internalized nuclei and t ype 1f iber predominance and hypotrophy with relative type 2 hypertrophy. Although cores were not typically seen on oxidative stains, electron microscopy revealed subtle abnormalities in most cases. External ophthalmoplegia, proximal weakness, and bulbar involvement were prominent clinical findings. Interpretation: Our findings expand the range of RYR1-related phenotypes and suggest RYR1 mutations as a common cause of congenital myopathies with central nuclei. Corresponding to recent observations in X-linked CNM, these findings indicate disturbed assembly and/or malfunction of the excitation-contraction machinery as a key mechanism in CNM and related myopathies. ANN NEUROL 2010;68:717–726

236 citations


Cited by
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
Lorenzo Galluzzi1, Lorenzo Galluzzi2, Ilio Vitale3, Stuart A. Aaronson4  +183 moreInstitutions (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

Journal ArticleDOI
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

01 Jan 2011
TL;DR: The sheer volume and scope of data posed by this flood of data pose a significant challenge to the development of efficient and intuitive visualization tools able to scale to very large data sets and to flexibly integrate multiple data types, including clinical data.
Abstract: Rapid improvements in sequencing and array-based platforms are resulting in a flood of diverse genome-wide data, including data from exome and whole-genome sequencing, epigenetic surveys, expression profiling of coding and noncoding RNAs, single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) and copy number profiling, and functional assays. Analysis of these large, diverse data sets holds the promise of a more comprehensive understanding of the genome and its relation to human disease. Experienced and knowledgeable human review is an essential component of this process, complementing computational approaches. This calls for efficient and intuitive visualization tools able to scale to very large data sets and to flexibly integrate multiple data types, including clinical data. However, the sheer volume and scope of data pose a significant challenge to the development of such tools.

2,187 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: It is now apparent that autophagy is deregulated in the context of various human pathologies, including cancer and neurodegeneration, and its modulation has considerable potential as a therapeutic approach.
Abstract: Autophagy is a highly conserved catabolic process induced under various conditions of cellular stress, which prevents cell damage and promotes survival in the event of energy or nutrient shortage and responds to various cytotoxic insults. Thus, autophagy has primarily cytoprotective functions and needs to be tightly regulated to respond correctly to the different stimuli that cells experience, thereby conferring adaptation to the ever-changing environment. It is now apparent that autophagy is deregulated in the context of various human pathologies, including cancer and neurodegeneration, and its modulation has considerable potential as a therapeutic approach.

1,701 citations