Jesper Nylandsted

Bio: Jesper Nylandsted is an academic researcher from University of Copenhagen. The author has contributed to research in topics: Plasma membrane repair & Membrane. The author has an hindex of 34, co-authored 71 publications receiving 5232 citations. Previous affiliations of Jesper Nylandsted include Children's National Medical Center & Medical University of South Carolina.

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)

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.

Heat Shock Protein 70 Promotes Cell Survival by Inhibiting Lysosomal Membrane Permeabilization

Abstract: Heat shock protein 70 (Hsp70) is a potent survival protein whose depletion triggers massive caspase-independent tumor cell death. Here, we show that Hsp70 exerts its prosurvival function by inhibiting lysosomal membrane permeabilization. The cell death induced by Hsp70 depletion was preceded by the release of lysosomal enzymes into the cytosol and inhibited by pharmacological inhibitors of lysosomal cysteine proteases. Accordingly, the Hsp70-mediated protection against various death stimuli in Hsp70-expressing human tumor cells as well as in immortalized Hsp70 transgenic murine fibroblasts occurred at the level of the lysosomal permeabilization. On the contrary, Hsp70 failed to inhibit the cytochrome c-induced, apoptosome-dependent caspase activation in vitro and Fas ligand-induced, caspase-dependent apoptosis in immortalized fibroblasts. Immunoelectron microscopy revealed that endosomal and lysosomal membranes of tumor cells contained Hsp70. Permeabilization of purified endo/lysosomes by digitonin failed to release Hsp70, suggesting that it is physically associated with the membranes. Finally, Hsp70 positive lysosomes displayed increased size and resistance against chemical and physical membrane destabilization. These data identify Hsp70 as the first survival protein that functions by inhibiting the death-associated permeabilization of lysosomes.

Hsp70 stabilizes lysosomes and reverts Niemann–Pick disease-associated lysosomal pathology

Abstract: Heat shock protein 70 (Hsp70) is an evolutionarily highly conserved molecular chaperone that promotes the survival of stressed cells by inhibiting lysosomal membrane permeabilization, a hallmark of stress-induced cell death. Clues to its molecular mechanism of action may lay in the recently reported stress- and cancer-associated translocation of a small portion of Hsp70 to the lysosomal compartment. Here we show that Hsp70 stabilizes lysosomes by binding to an endolysosomal anionic phospholipid bis(monoacylglycero)phosphate (BMP), an essential co-factor for lysosomal sphingomyelin metabolism. In acidic environments Hsp70 binds with high affinity and specificity to BMP, thereby facilitating the BMP binding and activity of acid sphingomyelinase (ASM). The inhibition of the Hsp70-BMP interaction by BMP antibodies or a point mutation in Hsp70 (Trp90Phe), as well as the pharmacological and genetic inhibition of ASM, effectively revert the Hsp70-mediated stabilization of lysosomes. Notably, the reduced ASM activity in cells from patients with Niemann-Pick disease (NPD) A and B-severe lysosomal storage disorders caused by mutations in the sphingomyelin phosphodiesterase 1 gene (SMPD1) encoding for ASM-is also associated with a marked decrease in lysosomal stability, and this phenotype can be effectively corrected by treatment with recombinant Hsp70. Taken together, these data open exciting possibilities for the development of new treatments for lysosomal storage disorders and cancer with compounds that enter the lysosomal lumen by the endocytic delivery pathway.

Members of the heat-shock protein 70 family promote cancer cell growth by distinct mechanisms

Abstract: Whereas the stress-inducible heat-shock protein 70 (Hsp70) has gained plenty of attention as a putative target for tumor therapy, little is known about the role of other Hsp70 proteins in cancer. Here we present the first thorough analysis of the expression and function of the cytosolic Hsp70 proteins in human cancer cells and identify Hsp70-2, a protein essential for spermatogenesis, as an important regulator of cancer cell growth. Targeted knock-down of the individual family members by RNA interference revealed that both Hsp70 and Hsp70-2 were required for cancer cell growth, whereas the survival of tumorigenic as well as nontumorigenic cells depended on Hsc70. Cancer cells depleted for Hsp70 and Hsp70-2 displayed strikingly different morphologies (detached and round vs. flat senescent-like), cell cycle distributions (G2/M vs. G1 arrest) and gene expression profiles. Only Hsp70-2 depletion induced the expression of macrophage inhibitory cytokine-1 that was identified as a target of P53 tumor-suppressor protein and a mediator of the G1 arrest and the senescent phenotype. Importantly, concomitant depletion of Hsp70 and Hsp70-2 had a synergistic antiproliferative effect on cancer cells. Thus, highly homologous Hsp70 proteins bring about nonoverlapping functions essential for cell growth and survival.

Selective depletion of heat shock protein 70 (Hsp70) activates a tumor-specific death program that is independent of caspases and bypasses Bcl-2

Abstract: Heat shock protein 70 is an antiapoptotic chaperone protein highly expressed in human breast tumors and tumor cell lines. Here, we demonstrate that the mere inhibition of its synthesis by adenoviral transfer or classical transfection of antisense Hsp70 cDNA (asHsp70) results in massive death of human breast cancer cells (MDA-MB-468, MCF-7, BT-549, and SK-BR-3), whereas the survival of nontumorigenic breast epithelial cells (HBL-100) or fibroblasts (WI-38) is not affected. Despite the apoptotic morphology as judged by electron microscopy, the asHsp70-induced death was independent of known caspases and the p53 tumor suppressor protein. Furthermore, Bcl-2 and Bcl-XL, which protect tumor cells from most forms of apoptosis, failed to rescue breast cancer cells from asHsp70-induced death. These results show that tumorigenic breast cancer cells depend on the constitutive high expression of Hsp70 to suppress a transformation-associated death program. Neutralization of Hsp70 may open new possibilities for treatment of cancers that have acquired resistance to therapies activating the classical apoptosis pathway.

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.

Molecular mechanisms of cell death: recommendations of the Nomenclature Committee on Cell Death 2018.

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.

Hsp70 chaperones: cellular functions and molecular mechanism.

Abstract: Hsp70 proteins are central components of the cellular network of molecular chaperones and folding catalysts. They assist a large variety of protein folding processes in the cell by transient association of their substrate binding domain with short hydrophobic peptide segments within their substrate proteins. The substrate binding and release cycle is driven by the switching of Hsp70 between the low-affinity ATP bound state and the high-affinity ADP bound state. Thus, ATP binding and hydrolysis are essential in vitro and in vivo for the chaperone activity of Hsp70 proteins. This ATPase cycle is controlled by co-chaperones of the family of J-domain proteins, which target Hsp70s to their substrates, and by nucleotide exchange factors, which determine the lifetime of the Hsp70-substrate complex. Additional co-chaperones fine-tune this chaperone cycle. For specific tasks the Hsp70 cycle is coupled to the action of other chaperones, such as Hsp90 and Hsp100.

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy in higher eukaryotes

Abstract: Research in autophagy continues to accelerate,(1) and as a result many new scientists are entering the field Accordingly, it is important to establish a standard set of criteria for monitoring macroautophagy in different organisms Recent reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose(2,3) There are many useful and convenient methods that can be used to monitor macroautophagy in yeast, but relatively few in other model systems, and there is much confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure macroautophagy in higher eukaryotes A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers of autophagosomes versus those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway; thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from fully functional autophagy that includes delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi) Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of the methods that can be used by investigators who are attempting to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as by reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that investigate these processes This set of guidelines is 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 verify an autophagic response