Raul Mostoslavsky

Bio: Raul Mostoslavsky is an academic researcher from Harvard University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Sirtuin & Histone deacetylase. The author has an hindex of 55, co-authored 117 publications receiving 23843 citations. Previous affiliations of Raul Mostoslavsky include Hebrew University of Jerusalem & Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Stress-Dependent Regulation of FOXO Transcription Factors by the SIRT1 Deacetylase

Abstract: The Sir2 deacetylase modulates organismal life-span in various species. However, the molecular mechanisms by which Sir2 increases longevity are largely unknown. We show that in mammalian cells, the Sir2 homolog SIRT1 appears to control the cellular response to stress by regulating the FOXO family of Forkhead transcription factors, a family of proteins that function as sensors of the insulin signaling pathway and as regulators of organismal longevity. SIRT1 and the FOXO transcription factor FOXO3 formed a complex in cells in response to oxidative stress, and SIRT1 deacetylated FOXO3 in vitro and within cells. SIRT1 had a dual effect on FOXO3 function: SIRT1 increased FOXO3's ability to induce cell cycle arrest and resistance to oxidative stress but inhibited FOXO3's ability to induce cell death. Thus, one way in which members of the Sir2 family of proteins may increase organismal longevity is by tipping FOXO-dependent responses away from apoptosis and toward stress resistance.

Recent progress in the biology and physiology of sirtuins

Abstract: The sirtuins are a highly conserved family of NAD(+)-dependent enzymes that regulate lifespan in lower organisms. Recently, the mammalian sirtuins have been connected to an ever widening circle of activities that encompass cellular stress resistance, genomic stability, tumorigenesis and energy metabolism. Here we review the recent progress in sirtuin biology, the role these proteins have in various age-related diseases and the tantalizing notion that the activity of this family of enzymes somehow regulates how long we live.

A role for the NAD-dependent deacetylase Sirt1 in the regulation of autophagy

Abstract: We demonstrate a role for the NAD-dependent deacetylase Sirt1 in the regulation of autophagy. In particular, transient increased expression of Sirt1 is sufficient to stimulate basal rates of autophagy. In addition, we show that Sirt1−/− mouse embryonic fibroblasts do not fully activate autophagy under starved conditions. Reconstitution with wild-type but not a deacetylase-inactive mutant of Sirt1 restores autophagy in these cells. We further demonstrate that Sirt1 can form a molecular complex with several essential components of the autophagy machinery, including autophagy genes (Atg)5, Atg7, and Atg8. In vitro, Sirt1 can, in an NAD-dependent fashion, directly deacetylate these components. The absence of Sirt1 leads to markedly elevated acetylation of proteins known to be required for autophagy in both cultured cells and in embryonic and neonatal tissues. Finally, we show that Sirt1−/− mice partially resemble Atg5−/− mice, including the accumulation of damaged organelles, disruption of energy homeostasis, and early perinatal mortality. Furthermore, the in utero delivery of the metabolic substrate pyruvate extends the survival of Sirt1−/− pups. These results suggest that the Sirt1 deacetylase is an important in vivo regulator of autophagy and provide a link between sirtuin function and the overall cellular response to limited nutrients.

DNA methylation patterns and epigenetic memory

Abstract: The character of a cell is defined by its constituent proteins, which are the result of specific patterns of gene expression. Crucial determinants of gene expression patterns are DNA-binding transcription factors that choose genes for transcriptional activation or repression by recognizing the sequence of DNA bases in their promoter regions. Interaction of these factors with their cognate sequences triggers a chain of events, often involving changes in the structure of chromatin, that leads to the assembly of an active transcription complex (e.g., Cosma et al. 1999). But the types of transcription factors present in a cell are not alone sufficient to define its spectrum of gene activity, as the transcriptional potential of a genome can become restricted in a stable manner during development. The constraints imposed by developmental history probably account for the very low efficiency of cloning animals from the nuclei of differentiated cells (Rideout et al. 2001; Wakayama and Yanagimachi 2001). A “transcription factors only” model would predict that the gene expression pattern of a differentiated nucleus would be completely reversible upon exposure to a new spectrum of factors. Although many aspects of expression can be reprogrammed in this way (Gurdon 1999), some marks of differentiation are evidently so stable that immersion in an alien cytoplasm cannot erase the memory. The genomic sequence of a differentiated cell is thought to be identical in most cases to that of the zygote from which it is descended (mammalian B and T cells being an obvious exception). This means that the marks of developmental history are unlikely to be caused by widespread somatic mutation. Processes less irrevocable than mutation fall under the umbrella term “epigenetic” mechanisms. A current definition of epigenetics is: “The study of mitotically and/or meiotically heritable changes in gene function that cannot be explained by changes in DNA sequence” (Russo et al. 1996). There are two epigenetic systems that affect animal development and fulfill the criterion of heritability: DNA methylation and the Polycomb-trithorax group (Pc-G/trx) protein complexes. (Histone modification has some attributes of an epigenetic process, but the issue of heritability has yet to be resolved.) This review concerns DNA methylation, focusing on the generation, inheritance, and biological significance of genomic methylation patterns in the development of mammals. Data will be discussed favoring the notion that DNA methylation may only affect genes that are already silenced by other mechanisms in the embryo. Embryonic transcription, on the other hand, may cause the exclusion of the DNA methylation machinery. The heritability of methylation states and the secondary nature of the decision to invite or exclude methylation support the idea that DNA methylation is adapted for a specific cellular memory function in development. Indeed, the possibility will be discussed that DNA methylation and Pc-G/trx may represent alternative systems of epigenetic memory that have been interchanged over evolutionary time. Animal DNA methylation has been the subject of several recent reviews (Bird and Wolffe 1999; Bestor 2000; Hsieh 2000; Costello and Plass 2001; Jones and Takai 2001). For recent reviews of plant and fungal DNA methylation, see Finnegan et al. (2000), Martienssen and Colot (2001), and Matzke et al. (2001).

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.