scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

Mikhail V. Blagosklonny

Bio: Mikhail V. Blagosklonny is an academic researcher from Roswell Park Cancer Institute. The author has contributed to research in topics: Senescence & PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway. The author has an hindex of 87, co-authored 247 publications receiving 31586 citations. Previous affiliations of Mikhail V. Blagosklonny include New York Medical College & University of Pennsylvania.


Papers
More filters
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: This study details the 2009 recommendations of the NCCD on the use of cell death-related terminology including ‘entosis’, ‘mitotic catastrophe”,’ ‘necrosis‚ ‘necroptosis‚’ and ‘pyroptotic’.
Abstract: Different types of cell death are often defined by morphological criteria, without a clear reference to precise biochemical mechanisms. The Nomenclature Committee on Cell Death (NCCD) proposes unified criteria for the definition of cell death and of its different morphologies, while formulating several caveats against the misuse of words and concepts that slow down progress in the area of cell death research. Authors, reviewers and editors of scientific periodicals are invited to abandon expressions like 'percentage apoptosis' and to replace them with more accurate descriptions of the biochemical and cellular parameters that are actually measured. Moreover, at the present stage, it should be accepted that caspase-independent mechanisms can cooperate with (or substitute for) caspases in the execution of lethal signaling pathways and that 'autophagic cell death' is a type of cell death occurring together with (but not necessarily by) autophagic vacuolization. This study details the 2009 recommendations of the NCCD on the use of cell death-related terminology including 'entosis', 'mitotic catastrophe', 'necrosis', 'necroptosis' and 'pyroptosis'.

3,005 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

Journal ArticleDOI
Lorenzo Galluzzi1, Lorenzo Galluzzi2, Lorenzo Galluzzi3, Stuart A. Aaronson4, John M. Abrams5, Emad S. Alnemri6, David W. Andrews7, Eric H. Baehrecke8, Nicolas G. Bazan9, Mikhail V. Blagosklonny10, Klas Blomgren11, Klas Blomgren12, Christoph Borner13, Dale E. Bredesen14, Dale E. Bredesen15, Catherine Brenner16, Maria Castedo1, Maria Castedo2, Maria Castedo3, John A. Cidlowski17, Aaron Ciechanover18, Gerald M. Cohen19, V De Laurenzi20, R De Maria21, Mohanish Deshmukh22, Brian David Dynlacht23, Wafik S. El-Deiry24, Richard A. Flavell25, Richard A. Flavell26, Simone Fulda27, Carmen Garrido28, Carmen Garrido2, Pierre Golstein2, Pierre Golstein29, Pierre Golstein16, Marie-Lise Gougeon30, Douglas R. Green, Hinrich Gronemeyer31, Hinrich Gronemeyer2, Hinrich Gronemeyer16, György Hajnóczky6, J. M. Hardwick32, Michael O. Hengartner33, Hidenori Ichijo34, Marja Jäättelä, Oliver Kepp2, Oliver Kepp1, Oliver Kepp3, Adi Kimchi35, Daniel J. Klionsky36, Richard A. Knight37, Sally Kornbluth38, Sharad Kumar, Beth Levine5, Beth Levine26, Stuart A. Lipton, Enrico Lugli17, Frank Madeo39, Walter Malorni21, Jean-Christophe Marine40, Seamus J. Martin41, Jan Paul Medema42, Patrick Mehlen16, Patrick Mehlen43, Gerry Melino19, Gerry Melino44, Ute M. Moll45, Ute M. Moll46, Eugenia Morselli2, Eugenia Morselli3, Eugenia Morselli1, Shigekazu Nagata47, Donald W. Nicholson48, Pierluigi Nicotera19, Gabriel Núñez36, Moshe Oren35, Josef M. Penninger49, Shazib Pervaiz50, Marcus E. Peter51, Mauro Piacentini44, Jochen H. M. Prehn52, Hamsa Puthalakath53, Gabriel A. Rabinovich54, Rosario Rizzuto55, Cecília M. P. Rodrigues56, David C. Rubinsztein57, Thomas Rudel58, Luca Scorrano59, Hans-Uwe Simon60, Hermann Steller61, Hermann Steller26, J. Tschopp62, Yoshihide Tsujimoto63, Peter Vandenabeele64, Ilio Vitale3, Ilio Vitale2, Ilio Vitale1, Karen H. Vousden65, Richard J. Youle17, Junying Yuan66, Boris Zhivotovsky67, Guido Kroemer1, Guido Kroemer2, Guido Kroemer3 
University of Paris-Sud1, French Institute of Health and Medical Research2, Institut Gustave Roussy3, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai4, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center5, Thomas Jefferson University6, McMaster University7, University of Massachusetts Medical School8, LSU Health Sciences Center New Orleans9, Roswell Park Cancer Institute10, Boston Children's Hospital11, University of Gothenburg12, University of Freiburg13, University of California, San Francisco14, Buck Institute for Research on Aging15, Centre national de la recherche scientifique16, National Institutes of Health17, Technion – Israel Institute of Technology18, University of Leicester19, University of Chieti-Pescara20, Istituto Superiore di Sanità21, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill22, New York University23, University of Pennsylvania24, Yale University25, Howard Hughes Medical Institute26, University of Ulm27, University of Burgundy28, Aix-Marseille University29, Pasteur Institute30, University of Strasbourg31, Johns Hopkins University32, University of Zurich33, University of Tokyo34, Weizmann Institute of Science35, University of Michigan36, University College London37, Duke University38, University of Graz39, Ghent University40, Trinity College, Dublin41, University of Amsterdam42, University of Lyon43, University of Rome Tor Vergata44, University of Göttingen45, Stony Brook University46, Kyoto University47, Merck & Co.48, Austrian Academy of Sciences49, National University of Singapore50, University of Chicago51, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland52, La Trobe University53, University of Buenos Aires54, University of Padua55, University of Lisbon56, University of Cambridge57, University of Würzburg58, University of Geneva59, University of Bern60, Rockefeller University61, University of Lausanne62, Osaka University63, University of California, San Diego64, University of Glasgow65, Harvard University66, Karolinska Institutet67
TL;DR: A nonexhaustive comparison of methods to detect cell death with apoptotic or nonapoptotic morphologies, their advantages and pitfalls is provided and the importance of performing multiple, methodologically unrelated assays to quantify dying and dead cells is emphasized.
Abstract: Cell death is essential for a plethora of physiological processes, and its deregulation characterizes numerous human diseases Thus, the in-depth investigation of cell death and its mechanisms constitutes a formidable challenge for fundamental and applied biomedical research, and has tremendous implications for the development of novel therapeutic strategies It is, therefore, of utmost importance to standardize the experimental procedures that identify dying and dead cells in cell cultures and/or in tissues, from model organisms and/or humans, in healthy and/or pathological scenarios Thus far, dozens of methods have been proposed to quantify cell death-related parameters However, no guidelines exist regarding their use and interpretation, and nobody has thoroughly annotated the experimental settings for which each of these techniques is most appropriate Here, we provide a nonexhaustive comparison of methods to detect cell death with apoptotic or nonapoptotic morphologies, their advantages and pitfalls These guidelines are intended for investigators who study cell death, as well as for reviewers who need to constructively critique scientific reports that deal with cellular demise Given the difficulties in determining the exact number of cells that have passed the point-of-no-return of the signaling cascades leading to cell death, we emphasize the importance of performing multiple, methodologically unrelated assays to quantify dying and dead cells

2,218 citations

Journal Article
01 Jan 2018-Nature
TL;DR: An updated classification of cell death subroutines focusing on mechanistic and essential aspects of the process is proposed, and the utility of neologisms that refer to highly specialized instances of these processes are discussed.
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.

1,150 citations


Cited by
More filters
28 Jul 2005
TL;DR: PfPMP1)与感染红细胞、树突状组胞以及胎盘的单个或多个受体作用,在黏附及免疫逃避中起关键的作�ly.
Abstract: 抗原变异可使得多种致病微生物易于逃避宿主免疫应答。表达在感染红细胞表面的恶性疟原虫红细胞表面蛋白1(PfPMP1)与感染红细胞、内皮细胞、树突状细胞以及胎盘的单个或多个受体作用,在黏附及免疫逃避中起关键的作用。每个单倍体基因组var基因家族编码约60种成员,通过启动转录不同的var基因变异体为抗原变异提供了分子基础。

18,940 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
06 Jun 2013-Cell
TL;DR: Nine tentative hallmarks that represent common denominators of aging in different organisms are enumerated, with special emphasis on mammalian aging, to identify pharmaceutical targets to improve human health during aging, with minimal side effects.

9,980 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Hypoxia-inducible factor 1 (HIF-1) activates the transcription of genes that are involved in crucial aspects of cancer biology, including angiogenesis, cell survival, glucose metabolism and invasion.
Abstract: Hypoxia-inducible factor 1 (HIF-1) activates the transcription of genes that are involved in crucial aspects of cancer biology, including angiogenesis, cell survival, glucose metabolism and invasion. Intratumoral hypoxia and genetic alterations can lead to HIF-1alpha overexpression, which has been associated with increased patient mortality in several cancer types. In preclinical studies, inhibition of HIF-1 activity has marked effects on tumour growth. Efforts are underway to identify inhibitors of HIF-1 and to test their efficacy as anticancer therapeutics.

6,024 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

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The ability to predict and circumvent drug resistance is likely to improve chemotherapy, and it has become apparent that resistance exists against every effective drug, even the authors' newest agents.
Abstract: Chemotherapeutics are the most effective treatment for metastatic tumours. However, the ability of cancer cells to become simultaneously resistant to different drugs--a trait known as multidrug resistance--remains a significant impediment to successful chemotherapy. Three decades of multidrug-resistance research have identified a myriad of ways in which cancer cells can elude chemotherapy, and it has become apparent that resistance exists against every effective drug, even our newest agents. Therefore, the ability to predict and circumvent drug resistance is likely to improve chemotherapy.

5,105 citations