scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

José de la Fuente

Bio: José de la Fuente is an academic researcher from Spanish National Research Council. The author has contributed to research in topics: Tick & Anaplasma phagocytophilum. The author has an hindex of 72, co-authored 502 publications receiving 22854 citations. Previous affiliations of José de la Fuente include University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna & Oklahoma State University–Stillwater.


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: Advances in genomics, proteomics, immunology and biochemical and molecular technologies during the last decade have been applied to research on A. marginale and related organisms, and the recent development of a cell culture system for A.marginale has provided a format for studying the pathogen/tick interface.

418 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
Monika Gulia-Nuss1, Monika Gulia-Nuss2, Andrew B. Nuss2, Andrew B. Nuss1, Jason M. Meyer3, Jason M. Meyer1, Daniel E. Sonenshine4, R. Michael Roe5, Robert M. Waterhouse, David B. Sattelle6, José de la Fuente7, José de la Fuente8, José M. C. Ribeiro9, Karyn Megy10, Karyn Megy11, Jyothi Thimmapuram1, Jason R. Miller12, Brian P. Walenz12, Brian P. Walenz9, Sergey Koren12, Sergey Koren9, Jessica B. Hostetler12, Jessica B. Hostetler9, Mathangi Thiagarajan13, Mathangi Thiagarajan12, Vinita Joardar9, Vinita Joardar12, Linda Hannick13, Linda Hannick12, Shelby L. Bidwell9, Shelby L. Bidwell12, Martin Hammond11, Sarah Young14, Qiandong Zeng14, Jenica L. Abrudan15, Jenica L. Abrudan16, Francisca C. Almeida17, Nieves Ayllón7, Ketaki Bhide1, Brooke W. Bissinger5, Elena Bonzón-Kulichenko18, Steven D. Buckingham6, Daniel R. Caffrey19, Melissa J. Caimano20, Vincent Croset21, Vincent Croset22, Timothy P. Driscoll23, Timothy P. Driscoll24, Don Gilbert25, Joseph J. Gillespie26, Joseph J. Gillespie24, Gloria I. Giraldo-Calderón1, Gloria I. Giraldo-Calderón15, Jeffrey M. Grabowski1, Jeffrey M. Grabowski9, David Jiang24, Sayed M.S. Khalil, Donghun Kim27, Donghun Kim28, Katherine M. Kocan8, Juraj Koči27, Juraj Koči26, Richard J. Kuhn1, Timothy J. Kurtti29, Kristin Lees30, Kristin Lees31, Emma G. Lang1, Ryan C. Kennedy32, Hyeogsun Kwon33, Hyeogsun Kwon28, Rushika Perera1, Rushika Perera34, Yumin Qi24, Justin D. Radolf20, Joyce M. Sakamoto35, Alejandro Sánchez-Gracia17, Maiara S. Severo36, Maiara S. Severo37, Neal S. Silverman19, Ladislav Šimo27, Ladislav Šimo38, Marta Tojo39, Marta Tojo10, Cristian Tornador40, Janice P. Van Zee1, Jesús Vázquez18, Filipe G. Vieira17, Margarita Villar7, Adam R. Wespiser19, Yunlong Yang28, Jiwei Zhu5, Peter Arensburger41, Patricia V. Pietrantonio28, Stephen C. Barker42, Renfu Shao43, Evgeny M. Zdobnov44, Evgeny M. Zdobnov45, Frank Hauser46, Cornelis J. P. Grimmelikhuijzen46, Yoonseong Park27, Julio Rozas17, Richard Benton22, Joao H. F. Pedra26, Joao H. F. Pedra37, David R. Nelson47, Maria F. Unger15, Jose M. C. Tubio48, Jose M. C. Tubio49, Zhijian Jake Tu24, Hugh M. Robertson50, Martin Shumway36, Martin Shumway12, Granger G. Sutton12, Jennifer R. Wortman12, Daniel Lawson11, Stephen K. Wikel51, Vishvanath Nene52, Vishvanath Nene12, Claire M. Fraser26, Frank H. Collins15, Bruce W. Birren14, Karen E. Nelson12, Elisabet Caler9, Elisabet Caler12, Catherine A. Hill1 
Purdue University1, University of Nevada, Reno2, Monsanto3, Old Dominion University4, North Carolina State University5, University College London6, Spanish National Research Council7, Oklahoma State University–Stillwater8, National Institutes of Health9, University of Cambridge10, Wellcome Trust11, J. Craig Venter Institute12, Leidos13, Broad Institute14, University of Notre Dame15, University of Nevada, Las Vegas16, University of Barcelona17, Carlos III Health Institute18, University of Massachusetts Medical School19, University of Connecticut20, University of Oxford21, University of Lausanne22, West Virginia University23, Virginia Tech24, Indiana University25, University of Maryland, Baltimore26, Kansas State University27, Texas A&M University28, University of Minnesota29, University of Manchester30, National University of Singapore31, University of California, San Francisco32, Iowa State University33, Colorado State University34, Pennsylvania State University35, Max Planck Society36, University of California, Riverside37, ANSES38, University of Santiago de Compostela39, Pompeu Fabra University40, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona41, University of Queensland42, University of the Sunshine Coast43, Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics44, University of Geneva45, University of Copenhagen46, University of Tennessee Health Science Center47, University of Vigo48, Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute49, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign50, Quinnipiac University51, International Livestock Research Institute52
TL;DR: Insights from genome analyses into parasitic processes unique to ticks, including host ‘questing', prolonged feeding, cuticle synthesis, blood meal concentration, novel methods of haemoglobin digestion, haem detoxification, vitellogenesis and prolonged off-host survival are reported.
Abstract: Ticks transmit more pathogens to humans and animals than any other arthropod. We describe the 2.1 Gbp nuclear genome of the tick, Ixodes scapularis (Say), which vectors pathogens that cause Lyme disease, human granulocytic anaplasmosis, babesiosis and other diseases. The large genome reflects accumulation of repetitive DNA, new lineages of retro-transposons, and gene architecture patterns resembling ancient metazoans rather than pancrustaceans. Annotation of scaffolds representing ∼57% of the genome, reveals 20,486 protein-coding genes and expansions of gene families associated with tick-host interactions. We report insights from genome analyses into parasitic processes unique to ticks, including host 'questing', prolonged feeding, cuticle synthesis, blood meal concentration, novel methods of haemoglobin digestion, haem detoxification, vitellogenesis and prolonged off-host survival. We identify proteins associated with the agent of human granulocytic anaplasmosis, an emerging disease, and the encephalitis-causing Langat virus, and a population structure correlated to life-history traits and transmission of the Lyme disease agent.

406 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The recent development of a cell culture system for A. marginale provides a potential source of antigen for the development of improved killed and live vaccines, and the availability of cell culture-derived antigen would eliminate the use of cattle in vaccine production.
Abstract: Anaplasmosis, a tick-borne cattle disease caused by the rickettsia Anaplasma marginale, is endemic in tropical and subtropical areas of the world. The disease causes considerable economic loss to both the dairy and beef industries worldwide. Analyses of 16S rRNA, groESL, and surface proteins have resulted in the recent reclassification of the order Rickettsiales. The genus Anaplasma, of which A. marginale is the type species, now also includes A. bovis, A. platys, and A. phagocytophilum, which were previously known as Ehrlichia bovis, E. platys, and the E. phagocytophila group (which causes human granulocytic ehrlichiosis), respectively. Live and killed vaccines have been used for control of anaplasmosis, and both types of vaccines have advantages and disadvantages. These vaccines have been effective in preventing clinical anaplasmosis in cattle but have not blocked A. marginale infection. Thus, persistently infected cattle serve as a reservoir of infective blood for both mechanical transmission and infection of ticks. Advances in biochemical, immunologic, and molecular technologies during the last decade have been applied to research of A. marginale and related organisms. The recent development of a cell culture system for A. marginale provides a potential source of antigen for the development of improved killed and live vaccines, and the availability of cell culture-derived antigen would eliminate the use of cattle in vaccine production. Increased knowledge of A. marginale antigen repertoires and an improved understanding of bovine cellular and humoral immune responses to A. marginale, combined with the new technologies, should contribute to the development of more effective vaccines for control and prevention of anaplasmosis.

384 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Commercial tick vaccines for cattle based on the Boophilus microplus Bm86 gut antigen have proven to be a feasible tick control method that offers a cost-effective, environmentally friendly alternative to the use of acaricides.
Abstract: Ticks are important ectoparasites of domestic and wild animals, and tick infestations economically impact cattle production worldwide. Control of cattle tick infestations has been primarily by application of acaricides which has resulted in selection of resistant ticks and environmental pollution. Herein we discuss data from tick vaccine application in Australia, Cuba, Mexico and other Latin American countries. Commercial tick vaccines for cattle based on the Boophilus microplus Bm86 gut antigen have proven to be a feasible tick control method that offers a cost-effective, environmentally friendly alternative to the use of acaricides. Commercial tick vaccines reduced tick infestations on cattle and the intensity of acaricide usage, as well as increasing animal production and reducing transmission of some tick-borne pathogens. Although commercialization of tick vaccines has been difficult owing to previous constraints of antigen discovery, the expense of testing vaccines in cattle, and company restructuring, the success of these vaccines over the past decade has clearly demonstrated their potential as an improved method of tick control for cattle. Development of improved vaccines in the future will be greatly enhanced by new and efficient molecular technologies for antigen discovery and the urgent need for a tick control method to reduce or replace the use of acaricides, especially in regions where extensive tick resistance has occurred.

341 citations


Cited by
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Preface to the Princeton Landmarks in Biology Edition vii Preface xi Symbols used xiii 1.
Abstract: Preface to the Princeton Landmarks in Biology Edition vii Preface xi Symbols Used xiii 1. The Importance of Islands 3 2. Area and Number of Speicies 8 3. Further Explanations of the Area-Diversity Pattern 19 4. The Strategy of Colonization 68 5. Invasibility and the Variable Niche 94 6. Stepping Stones and Biotic Exchange 123 7. Evolutionary Changes Following Colonization 145 8. Prospect 181 Glossary 185 References 193 Index 201

14,171 citations

Journal Article
Fumio Tajima1
30 Oct 1989-Genomics
TL;DR: It is suggested that the natural selection against large insertion/deletion is so weak that a large amount of variation is maintained in a population.

11,521 citations

01 Jun 2012
TL;DR: SPAdes as mentioned in this paper is a new assembler for both single-cell and standard (multicell) assembly, and demonstrate that it improves on the recently released E+V-SC assembler and on popular assemblers Velvet and SoapDeNovo (for multicell data).
Abstract: The lion's share of bacteria in various environments cannot be cloned in the laboratory and thus cannot be sequenced using existing technologies. A major goal of single-cell genomics is to complement gene-centric metagenomic data with whole-genome assemblies of uncultivated organisms. Assembly of single-cell data is challenging because of highly non-uniform read coverage as well as elevated levels of sequencing errors and chimeric reads. We describe SPAdes, a new assembler for both single-cell and standard (multicell) assembly, and demonstrate that it improves on the recently released E+V-SC assembler (specialized for single-cell data) and on popular assemblers Velvet and SoapDeNovo (for multicell data). SPAdes generates single-cell assemblies, providing information about genomes of uncultivatable bacteria that vastly exceeds what may be obtained via traditional metagenomics studies. SPAdes is available online ( http://bioinf.spbau.ru/spades ). It is distributed as open source software.

10,124 citations

Book ChapterDOI
01 Jan 2010

5,842 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