Masashi Narita

Bio: Masashi Narita is an academic researcher from University of Cambridge. The author has contributed to research in topics: Senescence & Autophagy. The author has an hindex of 43, co-authored 95 publications receiving 22729 citations. Previous affiliations of Masashi Narita include Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory & Howard Hughes Medical Institute.

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.

Bcl-2 family proteins regulate the release of apoptogenic cytochrome c by the mitochondrial channel VDAC

Abstract: During transduction of an apoptotic (death) signal into the cell, there is an alteration in the permeability of the membranes of the cell's mitochondria, which causes the translocation of the apoptogenic protein cytochrome c into the cytoplasm, which in turn activates death-driving proteolytic proteins known as caspases1,2 The Bcl-2 family of proteins, whose members may be anti-apoptotic or pro-apoptotic, regulates cell death by controlling this mitochondrial membrane permeability during apoptosis3,4,5, but how that is achieved is unclear Here we create liposomes that carry the mitochondrial porin channel (also called the voltage-dependent anion channel, or VDAC) to show that the recombinant pro-apoptotic proteins Bax and Bak accelerate the opening of VDAC, whereas the anti-apoptotic protein Bcl-xL closes VDAC by binding to it directly Bax and Bak allow cytochrome c to pass through VDAC out of liposomes, but passage is prevented by Bcl-xL In agreement with this, VDAC1-deficient mitochondria from a mutant yeast did not exhibit a Bax/Bak-induced loss in membrane potential and cytochrome c release, both of which were inhibited by Bcl-xL Our results indicate that the Bcl-2 family of proteins bind to the VDAC in order to regulate the mitochondrial membrane potential and the release of cytochrome c during apoptosis

Reversal of human cellular senescence: roles of the p53 and p16 pathways

Abstract: Telomere erosion and subsequent dysfunction limits the proliferation of normal human cells by a process termed replicative senescence. Replicative senescence is thought to suppress tumorigenesis by establishing an essentially irreversible growth arrest that requires activities of the p53 and pRB tumor suppressor proteins. We show that, depending on expression of the pRB regulator p16, replicative senescence is not necessarily irreversible. We used lentiviruses to express specific viral and cellular proteins in senescent human fibroblasts and mammary epithelial cells. Expression of telomerase did not reverse the senescence arrest. However, cells with low levels of p16 at senescence resumed robust growth upon p53 inactivation, and limited growth upon expression of oncogenic RAS. In contrast, cells with high levels of p16 at senescence failed to proliferate upon p53 inactivation or RAS expression, although they re-entered the cell cycle without growth after pRB inactivation. Our results indicate that the senescence response to telomere dysfunction is reversible and is maintained primarily by p53. However, p16 provides a dominant second barrier to the unlimited growth of human cells.

Comprehensive molecular portraits of human breast tumours

Abstract: We analysed primary breast cancers by genomic DNA copy number arrays, DNA methylation, exome sequencing, messenger RNA arrays, microRNA sequencing and reverse-phase protein arrays. Our ability to integrate information across platforms provided key insights into previously defined gene expression subtypes and demonstrated the existence of four main breast cancer classes when combining data from five platforms, each of which shows significant molecular heterogeneity. Somatic mutations in only three genes (TP53, PIK3CA and GATA3) occurred at >10% incidence across all breast cancers; however, there were numerous subtype-associated and novel gene mutations including the enrichment of specific mutations in GATA3, PIK3CA and MAP3K1 with the luminal A subtype. We identified two novel protein-expression-defined subgroups, possibly produced by stromal/microenvironmental elements, and integrated analyses identified specific signalling pathways dominant in each molecular subtype including a HER2/phosphorylated HER2/EGFR/phosphorylated EGFR signature within the HER2-enriched expression subtype. Comparison of basal-like breast tumours with high-grade serous ovarian tumours showed many molecular commonalities, indicating a related aetiology and similar therapeutic opportunities. The biological finding of the four main breast cancer subtypes caused by different subsets of genetic and epigenetic abnormalities raises the hypothesis that much of the clinically observable plasticity and heterogeneity occurs within, and not across, these major biological subtypes of breast cancer.

The biochemistry of apoptosis

Abstract: Apoptosis - the regulated destruction of a cell - is a complicated process. The decision to die cannot be taken lightly, and the activity of many genes influence a cell's likelihood of activating its self-destruction programme. Once the decision is taken, proper execution of the apoptotic programme requires the coordinated activation and execution of multiple subprogrammes. Here I review the basic components of the death machinery, describe how they interact to regulate apoptosis in a coordinated manner, and discuss the main pathways that are used to activate cell death.

The versatility and universality of calcium signalling

Abstract: The universality of calcium as an intracellular messenger depends on its enormous versatility. Cells have a calcium signalling toolkit with many components that can be mixed and matched to create a wide range of spatial and temporal signals. This versatility is exploited to control processes as diverse as fertilization, proliferation, development, learning and memory, contraction and secretion, and must be accomplished within the context of calcium being highly toxic. Exceeding its normal spatial and temporal boundaries can result in cell death through both necrosis and apoptosis.

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.