scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

Javier E. Irazoqui

Other affiliations: Duke University, Harvard University
Bio: Javier E. Irazoqui is an academic researcher from University of Massachusetts Medical School. The author has contributed to research in topics: TFEB & Innate immune system. The author has an hindex of 22, co-authored 39 publications receiving 8333 citations. Previous affiliations of Javier E. Irazoqui include Duke University & Harvard University.

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: 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.
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.

737 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: It is demonstrated that hlh-30 is essential for the extended lifespan of Caenorhabditis elegans in six mechanistically distinct longevity models, and overexpression of HLH-30 extends lifespan, and a conserved role for HLH -30 and TFEB in autophagy, and possibly longevity is demonstrated.
Abstract: Autophagy is a cellular recycling process that has an important anti-aging role, but the underlying molecular mechanism is not well understood. The mammalian transcription factor EB (TFEB) was recently shown to regulate multiple genes in the autophagy process. Here we show that the predicted TFEB orthologue HLH-30 regulates autophagy in Caenorhabditis elegans and, in addition, has a key role in lifespan determination. We demonstrate that hlh-30 is essential for the extended lifespan of Caenorhabditis elegans in six mechanistically distinct longevity models, and overexpression of HLH-30 extends lifespan. Nuclear localization of HLH-30 is increased in all six Caenorhabditis elegans models and, notably, nuclear TFEB levels are augmented in the livers of mice subjected to dietary restriction, a known longevity-extending regimen. Collectively, our results demonstrate a conserved role for HLH-30 and TFEB in autophagy, and possibly longevity, and identify HLH-30 as a uniquely important transcription factor for lifespan modulation in Caenorhabditis elegans. The mammalian protein TFEB is a key regulator of autophagy, a cellular process implicated in organismal ageing. Here, Lapierre et al. show that the TFEB orthologue HLH-30 is required for lifespan extension in six different long-lived Caenorhabditis elegansstrains.

395 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Strikingly, C. elegans seems to detect, and respond to, infection without the involvement of its homologue of Toll-like receptors, in contrast to the well-established role for these proteins in innate immunity in mammals.
Abstract: The genetically tractable model organism Caenorhabditis elegans was first used to model bacterial virulence in vivo a decade ago. Since then, great strides have been made in identifying the host response pathways that are involved in its defence against infection. Strikingly, C. elegans seems to detect, and respond to, infection without the involvement of its homologue of Toll-like receptors, in contrast to the well-established role for these proteins in innate immunity in mammals. What, therefore, do we know about host defence mechanisms in C. elegans and what can they tell us about innate immunity in higher organisms?

375 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

01 Aug 2000
TL;DR: Assessment of medical technology in the context of commercialization with Bioentrepreneur course, which addresses many issues unique to biomedical products.
Abstract: BIOE 402. Medical Technology Assessment. 2 or 3 hours. Bioentrepreneur course. Assessment of medical technology in the context of commercialization. Objectives, competition, market share, funding, pricing, manufacturing, growth, and intellectual property; many issues unique to biomedical products. Course Information: 2 undergraduate hours. 3 graduate hours. Prerequisite(s): Junior standing or above and consent of the instructor.

4,833 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 Mar 2017
TL;DR: Recent advances in understanding of mTOR function, regulation, and importance in mammalian physiology are reviewed and how the mTOR-signaling network contributes to human disease is highlighted.
Abstract: The mechanistic target of rapamycin (mTOR) coordinates eukaryotic cell growth and metabolism with environmental inputs, including nutrients and growth factors. Extensive research over the past two decades has established a central role for mTOR in regulating many fundamental cell processes, from protein synthesis to autophagy, and deregulated mTOR signaling is implicated in the progression of cancer and diabetes, as well as the aging process. Here, we review recent advances in our understanding of mTOR function, regulation, and importance in mammalian physiology. We also highlight how the mTOR signaling network contributes to human disease and discuss the current and future prospects for therapeutically targeting mTOR in the clinic.

2,014 citations