scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

Shaun Martin

Bio: Shaun Martin is an academic researcher from Katholieke Universiteit Leuven. The author has contributed to research in topics: Polyamine & Polyamine transport. The author has an hindex of 20, co-authored 32 publications receiving 6939 citations.

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: In this article, the authors present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes.
Abstract: In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field.

1,129 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
Jan Van Deun, Pieter Mestdagh1, Patrizia Agostinis, Özden Akay, Sushma Anand2, Jasper Anckaert1, Zoraida Andreu Martinez, Tine Baetens, Els Beghein, Laurence Bertier, Geert Berx, Janneke Boere3, Stephanie Boukouris2, Michel Bremer, Dominik Buschmann, James Brian Byrd, Clara Casert, Lesley Cheng2, Anna Cmoch, Delphine Daveloose, Eva De Smedt, Seyma Demirsoy, Victoria Depoorter, Bert Dhondt, Tom A. P. Driedonks, Aleksandra M. Dudek, Abdou ElSharawy, Ilaria Floris, Andrew D Foers, Kathrin Gärtner, Abhishek D. Garg, Edward Geeurickx, Jan Gettemans, Farzaneh Ghazavi1, Bernd Giebel, Tom Groot Kormelink, Grace V. Hancock, Hetty Helsmoortel1, Andrew F. Hill2, Vincent Hyenne, Hina Kalra2, David Kim, Joanna Kowal4, Joanna Kowal5, Sandra Kraemer, Petra Leidinger, Carina Leonelli1, Yaxuan Liang, Lien Lippens, Shu Liu6, Alessandra Lo Cicero4, Alessandra Lo Cicero7, Shaun Martin, Suresh Mathivanan2, Prabhu Mathiyalagan, Tamás Matusek7, Gloria Milani1, Marta Monguió-Tortajada, Liselot Mus1, Dillon C. Muth, Andrea Németh, Esther N. M. Nolte-‘t Hoen, Lorraine O'Driscoll, Roberta Palmulli7, Roberta Palmulli4, Michael W. Pfaffl, Bjarke Primdal-Bengtson4, Bjarke Primdal-Bengtson5, Erminia Romano, Quentin Rousseau, Susmita Sahoo, Natalia G. Sampaio, Monisha Samuel2, Benjamin J. Scicluna2, Bieke Soen, Anneleen Steels, Johannes V. Swinnen8, Maarit Takatalo, Safia Thaminy, Clotilde Théry5, Clotilde Théry4, Joeri Tulkens, Isabel Van Audenhove, Susanne G. van der Grein, Alan Van Goethem1, Martijn J. C. van Herwijnen, Guillaume van Niel7, Guillaume van Niel4, Nadine Van Roy1, Alexander R. van Vliet, Niels Vandamme, Suzanne Vanhauwaert1, Glenn Vergauwen, Frederik J. Verweij7, Frederik J. Verweij4, Annelynn Wallaert1, Marca H. M. Wauben, Kenneth W. Witwer, Marijke I. Zonneveld, Olivier De Wever, Jo Vandesompele1, An Hendrix 
TL;DR: It is argued that the field of extracellular vesicle (EV) biology needs more transparent reporting to facilitate interpretation and replication of experiments and EV-TRACK, a crowdsourcing knowledgebase that centralizes EV biology and methodology, is described.
Abstract: We argue that the field of extracellular vesicle (EV) biology needs more transparent reporting to facilitate interpretation and replication of experiments. To achieve this, we describe EV-TRACK, a crowdsourcing knowledgebase (http://evtrack.org) that centralizes EV biology and methodology with the goal of stimulating authors, reviewers, editors and funders to put experimental guidelines into practice.

777 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Different maturation states of DCs are discussed, how they might be attained and which anticancer agents or cell death modalities (e.g., tolerogenic cell death vs. ICD) may regulate these states.
Abstract: Dendritic cells (DCs) are the sentinel antigen-presenting cells of the immune system; such that their productive interface with the dying cancer cells is crucial for proper communication of the “non-self” status of cancer cells to the adaptive immune system. Efficiency and the ultimate success of such a communication hinges upon the maturation status of the DCs, attained following their interaction with cancer cells. Immature DCs facilitate tolerance towards cancer cells (observed for many apoptotic inducers) while fully mature DCs can strongly promote anticancer immunity if they secrete the correct combinations of cytokines (observed when DCs interact with cancer cells undergoing immunogenic cell death (ICD)). However, an intermediate population of DC maturation, called semi-mature DCs exists, which can potentiate either tolerogenicity or pro-tumourigenic responses (as happens in the case of certain chemotherapeutics and agents exerting ambivalent immune reactions). Specific combinations of DC phenotypic markers, DC-derived cytokines/chemokines, dying cancer cell-derived danger signals and other less characterized entities (e.g. exosomes) can define the nature and evolution of the DC maturation state. In the present review, we discuss these different maturation states of DCs, how they might be attained and which anticancer agents or cell death modalities (e.g. tolerogenic cell death vs. ICD) may regulate these states.

291 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The molecular nature, emerging plasticity in the danger signalling mechanisms and immunological impact of known DAMPs in the context of immunogenic cancer cell death are discussed and key effector mechanisms modulating the interface between dying cancer cells and the immune cells are discussed.
Abstract: Accumulating data indicates that following anti-cancer treatments, cancer cell death can be perceived as immunogenic or tolerogenic by the immune system. The former is made possible due to the ability of certain anti-cancer modalities to induce immunogenic cell death (ICD) that is associated with the emission of damage-associated molecular patterns (DAMPs), which assist in unlocking a sequence of events leading to the development of anti-tumour immunity. In response to ICD inducers, activation of endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress has been identified to be indispensable to confer the immunogenic character of cancer cell death, due to its ability to coordinate the danger signalling pathways responsible for the trafficking of vital DAMPs and subsequent anti-cancer immune responses. However, in recent times, certain processes apart from ER stress have emerged (e.g., autophagy and possibly viral response-like signature), which have the ability to influence danger signalling. In this review, we discuss the molecular nature, emerging plasticity in the danger signalling mechanisms and immunological impact of known DAMPs in the context of immunogenic cancer cell death. We also discuss key effector mechanisms modulating the interface between dying cancer cells and the immune cells, which we believe are crucial for the therapeutic relevance of ICD in the context of human cancers, and also discuss the influence of experimental conditions and animal models on these.

191 citations


Cited by
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI

[...]

08 Dec 2001-BMJ
TL;DR: There is, I think, something ethereal about i —the square root of minus one, which seems an odd beast at that time—an intruder hovering on the edge of reality.
Abstract: There is, I think, something ethereal about i —the square root of minus one. I remember first hearing about it at school. It seemed an odd beast at that time—an intruder hovering on the edge of reality. Usually familiarity dulls this sense of the bizarre, but in the case of i it was the reverse: over the years the sense of its surreal nature intensified. It seemed that it was impossible to write mathematics that described the real world in …

33,785 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
Clotilde Théry1, Kenneth W. Witwer2, Elena Aikawa3, María José Alcaraz4  +414 moreInstitutions (209)
TL;DR: The MISEV2018 guidelines include tables and outlines of suggested protocols and steps to follow to document specific EV-associated functional activities, and a checklist is provided with summaries of key points.
Abstract: The last decade has seen a sharp increase in the number of scientific publications describing physiological and pathological functions of extracellular vesicles (EVs), a collective term covering various subtypes of cell-released, membranous structures, called exosomes, microvesicles, microparticles, ectosomes, oncosomes, apoptotic bodies, and many other names. However, specific issues arise when working with these entities, whose size and amount often make them difficult to obtain as relatively pure preparations, and to characterize properly. The International Society for Extracellular Vesicles (ISEV) proposed Minimal Information for Studies of Extracellular Vesicles (“MISEV”) guidelines for the field in 2014. We now update these “MISEV2014” guidelines based on evolution of the collective knowledge in the last four years. An important point to consider is that ascribing a specific function to EVs in general, or to subtypes of EVs, requires reporting of specific information beyond mere description of function in a crude, potentially contaminated, and heterogeneous preparation. For example, claims that exosomes are endowed with exquisite and specific activities remain difficult to support experimentally, given our still limited knowledge of their specific molecular machineries of biogenesis and release, as compared with other biophysically similar EVs. The MISEV2018 guidelines include tables and outlines of suggested protocols and steps to follow to document specific EV-associated functional activities. Finally, a checklist is provided with summaries of key points.

5,988 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: Extracellular vesicles are now considered as an additional mechanism for intercellular communication, allowing cells to exchange proteins, lipids and genetic material.
Abstract: Extracellular vesicles are a heterogeneous group of cell-derived membranous structures comprising exosomes and microvesicles, which originate from the endosomal system or which are shed from the plasma membrane, respectively They are present in biological fluids and are involved in multiple physiological and pathological processes Extracellular vesicles are now considered as an additional mechanism for intercellular communication, allowing cells to exchange proteins, lipids and genetic material Knowledge of the cellular processes that govern extracellular vesicle biology is essential to shed light on the physiological and pathological functions of these vesicles as well as on clinical applications involving their use and/or analysis However, in this expanding field, much remains unknown regarding the origin, biogenesis, secretion, targeting and fate of these vesicles

4,241 citations

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