Marko Piirsoo

Bio: Marko Piirsoo is an academic researcher from University of Tartu. The author has contributed to research in topics: Sonic hedgehog & Signal transduction. The author has an hindex of 8, co-authored 17 publications receiving 1089 citations. Previous affiliations of Marko Piirsoo include Tallinn University of Technology.

Mouse and rat BDNF gene structure and expression revisited

Abstract: Brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) has important functions in the development of the nervous system and in brain plasticity-related processes such as memory, learning, and drug addiction. Despite the fact that the function and regulation of rodent BDNF gene expression have received close attention during the last decade, knowledge of the structural organization of mouse and rat BDNF gene has remained incomplete. We have identified and characterized several mouse and rat BDNF transcripts containing novel 5′ untranslated exons and introduced a new numbering system for mouse and rat BDNF exons. According to our results both mouse and rat BDNF gene consist of eight 5′ untranslated exons and one protein coding 3′ exon. Transcription of the gene results in BDNF transcripts containing one of the eight 5′ exons spliced to the protein coding exon and in a transcript containing only 5′ extended protein coding exon. We also report the distinct tissue-specific expression profiles of each of the mouse and rat 5′ exon-specific transcripts in different brain regions and nonneural tissues. In addition, we show that kainic acid-induced seizures that lead to changes in cellular Ca2+ levels as well as inhibition of DNA methylation and histone deacetylation contribute to the differential regulation of the expression of BDNF transcripts. Finally, we confirm that mouse and rat BDNF gene loci do not encode antisense mRNA transcripts, suggesting that mechanisms of regulation for rodent and human BDNF genes differ substantially. © 2006 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Vertebrate Homologues of Drosophila Fused Kinase and Their Roles in Sonic Hedgehog Signalling Pathway. Selgroogsete fu kinaasi homoloogide roll Sonic Hedgehogi signaali ülekanderajas

Abstract: The segment polarity gene Fused (Fu) encodes a putative serine–threonine kinase Fu, which has been shown to play a key role in the Hedgehog signaling pathway of Drosophila. Human FU (hFU) has been shown to enhance the activity of Gli transcription factors, targets of the signaling pathway. However, Fu mice do not show aberrant embryonic development indicating that mouse Fu (mFu) is dispensable for Hedgehog signaling until birth. In order to investigate if there are important differences between hFU and mFu, we cloned the cDNA, analyzed expression and tested the ability of mFu to regulate Gli proteins. Of the tested tissues only brain and testis showed significant expression. However, in transient overexpression analyses mFu was able to enhance Gli induced transcription in a manner similar to hFU. Thus, we turned to RNAi in order to test if mFu would be important for Hedgehog signaling after all. In one cell line with reduced mFu expression the Hedgehog signaling was severely hampered, indicating that mFu may have a role in Hedgehog signaling and Gli regulation in some cellular

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.

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

Neurotrophin regulation of neural circuit development and function

Abstract: Brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF)--a member of a small family of secreted proteins that includes nerve growth factor, neurotrophin 3 and neurotrophin 4--has emerged as a key regulator of neural circuit development and function. The expression, secretion and actions of BDNF are directly controlled by neural activity, and secreted BDNF is capable of mediating many activity-dependent processes in the mammalian brain, including neuronal differentiation and growth, synapse formation and plasticity, and higher cognitive functions. This Review summarizes some of the recent progress in understanding the cellular and molecular mechanisms underlying neurotrophin regulation of neural circuits. The focus of the article is on BDNF, as this is the most widely expressed and studied neurotrophin in the mammalian brain.