scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

Paul B. Fisher

Bio: Paul B. Fisher is an academic researcher from Virginia Commonwealth University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Cancer & Cancer cell. The author has an hindex of 80, co-authored 449 publications receiving 31149 citations. Previous affiliations of Paul B. Fisher include Discovery Institute & Columbia University Medical Center.
Topics: Cancer, Cancer cell, Melanoma, Metastasis, Medicine


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: These guidelines are presented 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.
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.

4,316 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
06 Jan 2005-Nature
TL;DR: Using a blinded screen of 1,040 FDA-approved drugs and nutritionals, it is discovered that many β-lactam antibiotics are potent stimulators of GLT1 expression, and this action appears to be mediated through increased transcription of theGLT1 gene.
Abstract: Glutamate is the principal excitatory neurotransmitter in the nervous system. Inactivation of synaptic glutamate is handled by the glutamate transporter GLT1 (also known as EAAT2; refs 1, 2), the physiologically dominant astroglial protein. In spite of its critical importance in normal and abnormal synaptic activity, no practical pharmaceutical can positively modulate this protein. Animal studies show that the protein is important for normal excitatory synaptic transmission, while its dysfunction is implicated in acute and chronic neurological disorders, including amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), stroke, brain tumours and epilepsy. Using a blinded screen of 1,040 FDA-approved drugs and nutritionals, we discovered that many beta-lactam antibiotics are potent stimulators of GLT1 expression. Furthermore, this action appears to be mediated through increased transcription of the GLT1 gene. beta-Lactams and various semi-synthetic derivatives are potent antibiotics that act to inhibit bacterial synthetic pathways. When delivered to animals, the beta-lactam ceftriaxone increased both brain expression of GLT1 and its biochemical and functional activity. Glutamate transporters are important in preventing glutamate neurotoxicity. Ceftriaxone was neuroprotective in vitro when used in models of ischaemic injury and motor neuron degeneration, both based in part on glutamate toxicity. When used in an animal model of the fatal disease ALS, the drug delayed loss of neurons and muscle strength, and increased mouse survival. Thus these studies provide a class of potential neurotherapeutics that act to modulate the expression of glutamate neurotransmitter transporters via gene activation.

1,401 citations

Journal Article
01 Nov 1994-Oncogene
TL;DR: It is demonstrated that p21 induction occurs during initiation of terminal differentiation in a p53-independent manner and may play a more global role in growth control and differentiation than originally envisioned.
Abstract: The melanoma differentiation associated gene, mda-6, which is identical to the P53-inducible gene WAF1/CIP1, encodes an M(r) 21,000 protein (p21) that can directly inhibit cell growth by repressing cyclin dependent kinases. mda-6 was identified using subtraction hybridization by virtue of its enhanced expression in human melanoma cells induced to terminally differentiate by treatment with human fibroblast interferon and the anti-leukemic compound mezerein (Jiang and Fisher, 1993). In the present study, we demonstrate that mda-6 (WAF1/CIP1) is an immediate early response gene induced during differentiation of the promyelocytic HL-60 leukemia cell line along the granulocytic or macrophage/monocyte pathway. mda-6 gene expression in HL-60 cells is induced within 1 to 3 h during differentiation along the macrophage/monocyte pathway evoked by 12-0-tetradecanoyl phorbol-13-acetate (TPA) or 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3 (Vit D3) or the granulocytic pathway produced by retinoic acid (RA) or dimethylsulfoxide (DMSO). Immunoprecipitation analyses using an anti-p21 antibody indicate a temporal induction of p21 protein following treatment with TPA, DMSO or RA. A relationship between rapid induction of mda-6 gene expression and differentiation is indicated by a delay in this expression in an HL-60 cell variant resistant to TPA-induced growth arrest and differentiation. A similar delay in mda-6 gene expression is not observed in Vit D3 treated TPA-resistant variant cells that are also sensitive to induction of monocytic differentiation. Since HL-60 cells have a null-p53 phenotype, these results demonstrate that p21 induction occurs during initiation of terminal differentiation in a p53-independent manner. In this context, p21 may play a more global role in growth control and differentiation than originally envisioned.

535 citations

Journal Article
21 Dec 1995-Oncogene
TL;DR: Results confirm that mda-7 has antiproliferative properties in human melanoma cells and in this context may contribute to terminal cell differentiation.
Abstract: Cultured human melanoma cells lose proliferative capacity and terminally differentiate after treatment with the combination of recombinant human fibroblast interferon (IFN-beta) and mezerein (MEZ). Subtraction hybridization of cDNA libraries prepared from actively proliferating human H0-1 melanoma cells from cDNA libraries produced from H0-1 cells treated with IFN-beta + MEZ identifies a novel melanoma differentiation-associated (mda) cDNA, mda-7, that displays elevated expression in differentiation inducer-treated H0-1 cells. mda-7 encodes a novel protein of 206 amino acids with a predicted size of 23.8 kDa. The level of mda-7 mRNA is elevated in actively proliferating normal human melanocytes versus primary and metastatic human melanomas. In the Matrigel-assisted melanoma progression model, mda-7 expression decreases in early vertical growth phase primary human melanoma cells selected for autonomous or enhanced tumor formation in nude mice. Treatment of human melanomas with IFN-beta + MEZ, and to a lesser extent with MEZ, results in growth suppression and induced or enhanced mda-7 expression. Immunoprecipitation analyses using peptide-derived rabbit polyclonal antibodies detect increases in mda-7 protein, and a higher molecular weight protein of approximately 90 to 100 kDa, in MEZ and IFN-beta + MEZ treated H0-1 cells. mda-7 is a highly conserved gene with an homologous sequence in the genome of yeast. Transfection of mda-7 expression constructs into H0-1 and C8161 human melanoma cells reduces growth and inhibits colony formation. These results confirm that mda-7 has antiproliferative properties in human melanoma cells and in this context may contribute to terminal cell differentiation. The mda-7 gene may also function as a negative regulator of melanoma progression.

515 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
TL;DR: Findings that have advanced the understanding of IL-10 and its receptor are highlighted, as well as its in vivo function in health and disease.
Abstract: Interleukin-10 (IL-10), first recognized for its ability to inhibit activation and effector function of T cells, monocytes, and macrophages, is a multifunctional cytokine with diverse effects on most hemopoietic cell types. The principal routine function of IL-10 appears to be to limit and ultimately terminate inflammatory responses. In addition to these activities, IL-10 regulates growth and/or differentiation of B cells, NK cells, cytotoxic and helper T cells, mast cells, granulocytes, dendritic cells, keratinocytes, and endothelial cells. IL-10 plays a key role in differentiation and function of a newly appreciated type of T cell, the T regulatory cell, which may figure prominently in control of immune responses and tolerance in vivo. Uniquely among hemopoietic cytokines, IL-10 has closely related homologs in several virus genomes, which testify to its crucial role in regulating immune and inflammatory responses. This review highlights findings that have advanced our understanding of IL-10 and its receptor, as well as its in vivo function in health and disease.

6,308 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: These guidelines are presented 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.
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.

4,316 citations