Sujit K. Bhutia

Bio: Sujit K. Bhutia is an academic researcher from National Institute of Technology, Rourkela. The author has contributed to research in topics: Autophagy & Apoptosis. The author has an hindex of 43, co-authored 142 publications receiving 9989 citations. Previous affiliations of Sujit K. Bhutia include Virginia Commonwealth University & Indian Institutes of Technology.

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.

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)

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.

Autophagy and apoptosis: where do they meet?

Abstract: Autophagy and apoptosis are two important cellular processes with complex and intersecting protein networks; as such, they have been the subjects of intense investigation. Recent advances have elucidated the key players and their molecular circuitry. For instance, the discovery of Beclin-1’s interacting partners has resulted in the identification of Bcl-2 as a central regulator of autophagy and apoptosis, which functions by interacting with both Beclin-1 and Bax/Bak respectively. When localized to the endoplasmic reticulum and mitochondria, Bcl-2 inhibits autophagy. Cellular stress causes the displacement of Bcl-2 from Beclin-1 and Bax, thereby triggering autophagy and apoptosis, respectively. The induction of autophagy or apoptosis results in disruption of complexes by BH3-only proteins and through post-translational modification. The mechanisms linking autophagy and apoptosis are not fully defined; however, recent discoveries have revealed that several apoptotic proteins (e.g., PUMA, Noxa, Nix, Bax, XIAP, and Bim) modulate autophagy. Moreover, autophagic proteins that control nucleation and elongation regulate intrinsic apoptosis through calpain- and caspase-mediated cleavage of autophagy-related proteins, which switches the cellular program from autophagy to apoptosis. Similarly, several autophagic proteins are implicated in extrinsic apoptosis. This highlights a dual cellular role for autophagy. On one hand, autophagy degrades damaged mitochondria and caspases, and on the other hand, it provides a membrane-based intracellular platform for caspase processing in the regulation of apoptosis. In this review, we highlight the crucial factors governing the crosstalk between autophagy and apoptosis and describe the mechanisms controlling cell survival and cell death.

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.

Regulation of microRNA biogenesis

Abstract: MicroRNAs (miRNAs) are small non-coding RNAs that function as guide molecules in RNA silencing. Targeting most protein-coding transcripts, miRNAs are involved in nearly all developmental and pathological processes in animals. The biogenesis of miRNAs is under tight temporal and spatial control, and their dysregulation is associated with many human diseases, particularly cancer. In animals, miRNAs are ∼22 nucleotides in length, and they are produced by two RNase III proteins--Drosha and Dicer. miRNA biogenesis is regulated at multiple levels, including at the level of miRNA transcription; its processing by Drosha and Dicer in the nucleus and cytoplasm, respectively; its modification by RNA editing, RNA methylation, uridylation and adenylation; Argonaute loading; and RNA decay. Non-canonical pathways for miRNA biogenesis, including those that are independent of Drosha or Dicer, are also emerging.

Molecular mechanisms of cell death: recommendations of the Nomenclature Committee on Cell Death 2018.

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.

Molecular definitions of cell death subroutines: recommendations of the Nomenclature Committee on Cell Death 2012

Abstract: In 2009, the Nomenclature Committee on Cell Death (NCCD) proposed a set of recommendations for the definition of distinct cell death morphologies and for the appropriate use of cell death-related terminology, including 'apoptosis', 'necrosis' and 'mitotic catastrophe'. In view of the substantial progress in the biochemical and genetic exploration of cell death, time has come to switch from morphological to molecular definitions of cell death modalities. Here we propose a functional classification of cell death subroutines that applies to both in vitro and in vivo settings and includes extrinsic apoptosis, caspase-dependent or -independent intrinsic apoptosis, regulated necrosis, autophagic cell death and mitotic catastrophe. Moreover, we discuss the utility of expressions indicating additional cell death modalities. On the basis of the new, revised NCCD classification, cell death subroutines are defined by a series of precise, measurable biochemical features.

Regulatory T Cells

Abstract: Despite the skepticism that once prevailed among immunologists, it is now widely accepted that the normal immune system harbors a T-cell population, called regulatory T cells (Treg cells), specialized for immune suppression. It was first shown that depletion of a T-cell subpopulation from normal rodents produced autoimmune disease. Search for a molecular marker specific for such autoimmune-preventive Treg cells has revealed that the majority, if not all, of them constitutively express the CD25 molecule as depletion of CD25+CD4+ T cells spontaneously evokes autoimmune disease in otherwise normal rodents. The expression of CD25 by Treg cells has made it possible to delineate their developmental pathways, in particular their thymic development, and establish simple in vitro assay for assessing their suppressive activity. The marker and the in vitro assay have helped to identify human Treg cells with similar functional and phenotypic characteristics. Recent efforts have shown that natural Treg cells specifically express the transcription factor Foxp3 and that mutations of the Foxp3 gene produce a variety of immunological diseases in humans and rodents. Specific expression of Foxp3 in natural Treg cells has enabled their functional and developmental characterization by genetic approach. These studies altogether have provided firm evidence for Foxp3+CD25+CD4+ Treg cells as an indispensable cellular constituent of the normal immune system for establishing and maintaining immunologic self-tolerance and immune homeostasis. Treg cells are now within the scope of clinical use to treat immunological diseases and control physiological and pathological immune responses.