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.

/pdf/guidelines-for-the-use-and-interpretation-of-assays-for-ijf2t30pbq.pdf

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition)

A newly described coronavirus named severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which is the causative agent of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has infected over 2.3 million people, led to the death of more than 160,000 individuals and caused worldwide social and economic disruption1,2. There are no antiviral drugs with proven clinical efficacy for the treatment of COVID-19, nor are there any vaccines that prevent infection with SARS-CoV-2, and efforts to develop drugs and vaccines are hampered by the limited knowledge of the molecular details of how SARS-CoV-2 infects cells. Here we cloned, tagged and expressed 26 of the 29 SARS-CoV-2 proteins in human cells and identified the human proteins that physically associated with each of the SARS-CoV-2 proteins using affinity-purification mass spectrometry, identifying 332 high-confidence protein–protein interactions between SARS-CoV-2 and human proteins. Among these, we identify 66 druggable human proteins or host factors targeted by 69 compounds (of which, 29 drugs are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, 12 are in clinical trials and 28 are preclinical compounds). We screened a subset of these in multiple viral assays and found two sets of pharmacological agents that displayed antiviral activity: inhibitors of mRNA translation and predicted regulators of the sigma-1 and sigma-2 receptors. Further studies of these host-factor-targeting agents, including their combination with drugs that directly target viral enzymes, could lead to a therapeutic regimen to treat COVID-19. A human–SARS-CoV-2 protein interaction map highlights cellular processes that are hijacked by the virus and that can be targeted by existing drugs, including inhibitors of mRNA translation and predicted regulators of the sigma receptors.

/pdf/a-sars-cov-2-protein-interaction-map-reveals-targets-for-5d1m2n6hc1.pdf

A SARS-CoV-2 protein interaction map reveals targets for drug repurposing.

Systematic and Quantitative Assessment of the Ubiquitin-Modified Proteome

Genomic instability is one of the most pervasive characteristics of tumour cells and is probably the combined effect of DNA damage, tumour-specific DNA repair defects, and a failure to stop or stall the cell cycle before the damaged DNA is passed on to daughter cells. Although these processes drive genomic instability and ultimately the disease process, they also provide therapeutic opportunities. A better understanding of the cellular response to DNA damage will not only inform our knowledge of cancer development but also help to refine the classification as well as the treatment of the disease.

The DNA damage response and cancer therapy

Lenalidomide is a drug with clinical efficacy in multiple myeloma and other B cell neoplasms, but its mechanism of action is unknown. Using quantitative proteomics, we found that lenalidomide causes selective ubiquitination and degradation of two lymphoid transcription factors, IKZF1 and IKZF3, by the CRBN-CRL4 ubiquitin ligase. IKZF1 and IKZF3 are essential transcription factors in multiple myeloma. A single amino acid substitution of IKZF3 conferred resistance to lenalidomide-induced degradation and rescued lenalidomide-induced inhibition of cell growth. Similarly, we found that lenalidomide-induced interleukin-2 production in T cells is due to depletion of IKZF1 and IKZF3. These findings reveal a previously unknown mechanism of action for a therapeutic agent: alteration of the activity of an E3 ubiquitin ligase, leading to selective degradation of specific targets.

/pdf/lenalidomide-causes-selective-degradation-of-ikzf1-and-ikzf3-3oc36x0iyn.pdf

Lenalidomide Causes Selective Degradation of IKZF1 and IKZF3 in Multiple Myeloma Cells

The clinical development of an inhibitor of cellular proteasome function suggests that compounds targeting other components of the ubiquitin-proteasome system might prove useful for the treatment of human malignancies. NEDD8-activating enzyme (NAE) is an essential component of the NEDD8 conjugation pathway that controls the activity of the cullin-RING subtype of ubiquitin ligases, thereby regulating the turnover of a subset of proteins upstream of the proteasome. Substrates of cullin-RING ligases have important roles in cellular processes associated with cancer cell growth and survival pathways. Here we describe MLN4924, a potent and selective inhibitor of NAE. MLN4924 disrupts cullin-RING ligase-mediated protein turnover leading to apoptotic death in human tumour cells by a new mechanism of action, the deregulation of S-phase DNA synthesis. MLN4924 suppressed the growth of human tumour xenografts in mice at compound exposures that were well tolerated. Our data suggest that NAE inhibitors may hold promise for the treatment of cancer.

An inhibitor of NEDD8-activating enzyme as a new approach to treat cancer

This invention relates to compounds that inhibit E1 activating enzymes, pharmaceutical compositions comprising the compounds, and methods of using the compounds. The compounds are useful for treating disorders, particularly cell proliferation disorders, including cancers, inflammatory and neurodegenerative disorders; and inflammation associated with infection and cachexia.

Heteroaryl compounds useful as inhibitors of e1 activating enzymes

This invention relates to compounds of formula (I-A) 
wherein Ring A and the variables X, Y, R 3a , R 3b , R 3c , R 3d , R 4 , R 5 , R 5′ , and m are defined herein. The compounds of formula (I-A) inhibit E1 activating enzymes, pharmaceutical compositions comprising the compounds, and methods of using the compounds. The compounds of the invention are useful for treating disorders, particularly cell proliferation disorders, including cancers, inflammatory and neurodegenerative disorders; and inflammation associated with infection and cachexia.

Stephen Critchley

Papers

An inhibitor of NEDD8-activating enzyme as a new approach to treat cancer

Heteroaryl compounds useful as inhibitors of e1 activating enzymes

Substituted pyrrolo[2,3-d]pyrimidines as inhibitors of E1 activating enzymes