Sally Kornbluth

Bio: Sally Kornbluth is an academic researcher from Duke University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Apoptosis & Xenopus. The author has an hindex of 57, co-authored 127 publications receiving 12234 citations. Previous affiliations of Sally Kornbluth include University of California, San Diego & Rockefeller University.

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring cell death in higher eukaryotes

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

Cellular Mechanisms Controlling Caspase Activation and Function

Abstract: Caspases are the primary drivers of apoptotic cell death, cleaving cellular proteins that are critical for dismantling the dying cell. Initially translated as inactive zymogenic precursors, caspases are activated in response to a variety of cell death stimuli. In addition to factors required for their direct activation (e.g., dimerizing adaptor proteins in the case of initiator caspases that lie at the apex of apoptotic signaling cascades), caspases are regulated by a variety of cellular factors in a myriad of physiological and pathological settings. For example, caspases may be modified posttranslationally (e.g., by phosphorylation or ubiquitylation) or through interaction of modulatory factors with either the zymogenic or active form of a caspase, altering its activation and/or activity. These regulatory events may inhibit or enhance enzymatic activity or may affect activity toward particular cellular substrates. Finally, there is emerging literature to suggest that caspases can participate in a variety of cellular processes unrelated to apoptotic cell death. In these settings, it is particularly important that caspases are maintained under stringent control to avoid inadvertent cell death. It is likely that continued examination of these processes will reveal new mechanisms of caspase regulation with implications well beyond control of apoptotic cell death.

Mitochondria and apoptosis

Abstract: A variety of key events in apoptosis focus on mitochondria, including the release of caspase activators (such as cytochrome c), changes in electron transport, loss of mitochondrial transmembrane potential, altered cellular oxidation-reduction, and participation of pro- and antiapoptotic Bcl-2 family proteins. The different signals that converge on mitochondria to trigger or inhibit these events and their downstream effects delineate several major pathways in physiological cell death.

CDK inhibitors: positive and negative regulators of G1-phase progression

Abstract: Mitogen-dependent progression through the first gap phase (G1) and initiation of DNA synthesis (S phase) during the mammalian cell division cycle are cooperatively regulated by several classes of cyclin-dependent kinases (CDKs) whose activities are in turn constrained by CDK inhibitors (CKIs). CKIs that govern these events have been assigned to one of two families based on their structures and CDK targets. The first class includes the INK4 proteins (inhibitors of CDK4), so named for their ability to specifically inhibit the catalytic subunits of CDK4 and CDK6. Four such proteins [p16 (Serrano et al. 1993), p15 (Hannon and Beach 1994), p18 (Guan et al. 1994; Hirai et al. 1995), and p19 (Chan et al. 1995; Hirai et al. 1995)] are composed of multiple ankyrin repeats and bind only to CDK4 and CDK6 but not to other CDKs or to D-type cyclins. The INK4 proteins can be contrasted with more broadly acting inhibitors of the Cip/Kip family whose actions affect the activities of cyclin D-, E-, and A-dependent kinases. The latter class includes p21 (Gu et al. 1993; Harper et al. 1993; El-Deiry et al. 1993; Xiong et al. 1993a; Dulic et al. 1994; Noda et al. 1994), p27 (Polyak et al. 1994a,b; Toyoshima and Hunter 1994), and p57 (Lee et al. 1995; Matsuoka et al. 1995), all of which contain characteristic motifs within their amino-terminal moieties that enable them to bind both to cyclin and CDK subunits (Chen et al. 1995, 1996; Nakanishi et al. 1995; Warbrick et al. 1995; Lin et al. 1996; Russo et al. 1996). Based largely on in vitro experiments and in vivo overexpression studies, CKIs of the Cip/Kip family were initially thought to interfere with the activities of cyclin D-, E-, and A-dependent kinases. More recent work has altered this view and revealed that although the Cip/Kip proteins are potent inhibitors of cyclin Eand A-dependent CDK2, they act as positive regulators of cyclin Ddependent kinases. This challenges previous assumptions about how the G1/S transition of the mammalian cell cycle is governed, helps explain some enigmatic features of cell cycle control that also involve the functions of the retinoblastoma protein (Rb) and the INK4 proteins, and changes our thinking about how either p16 loss or overexpression of cyclin D-dependent kinases contribute to cancer. Here we focus on the biochemical interactions that occur between CKIs and cyclin Dand E-dependent kinases in cultured mammalian cells, emphasizing the manner by which different positive and negative regulators of the cell division cycle cooperate to govern the G1-to-S transition. To gain a more comprehensive understanding of the biology of CDK inhibitors, readers are encouraged to refer to a rapidly emerging but already extensive literature (for review, see Elledge and Harper 1994; Sherr and Roberts 1995; Chellappan et al. 1998; Hengst and Reed 1998a; Kiyokawa and Koff 1998; Nakayama 1998; Ruas and Peters 1998).

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.

The Ki‐67 protein: From the known and the unknown

Abstract: The expression of the human Ki-67 protein is strictly associated with cell proliferation. During interphase, the antigen can be exclusively detected within the nucleus, whereas in mitosis most of the protein is relocated to the surface of the chromosomes. The fact that the Ki-67 protein is present during all active phases of the cell cycle (G(1), S, G(2), and mitosis), but is absent from resting cells (G(0)), makes it an excellent marker for determining the so-called growth fraction of a given cell population. In the first part of this study, the term proliferation marker is discussed and examples of the applications of anti-Ki-67 protein antibodies in diagnostics of human tumors are given. The fraction of Ki-67-positive tumor cells (the Ki-67 labeling index) is often correlated with the clinical course of the disease. The best-studied examples in this context are carcinomas of the prostate and the breast. For these types of tumors, the prognostic value for survival and tumor recurrence has repeatedly been proven in uni- and multivariate analysis. The preparation of new monoclonal antibodies that react with the Ki-67 equivalent protein from rodents now extends the use of the Ki-67 protein as a proliferation marker to laboratory animals that are routinely used in basic research. The second part of this review focuses on the biology of the Ki-67 protein. Our current knowledge of the Ki-67 gene and protein structure, mRNA splicing, expression, and cellular localization during the cell-division cycle is summarized and discussed. Although the Ki-67 protein is well characterized on the molecular level and extensively used as a proliferation marker, the functional significance still remains unclear. There are indications, however, that Ki-67 protein expression is an absolute requirement for progression through the cell-division cycle.

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.