scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

Thomas M. Durcan

Bio: Thomas M. Durcan is an academic researcher from Montreal Neurological Institute and Hospital. The author has contributed to research in topics: Medicine & Biology. The author has an hindex of 19, co-authored 73 publications receiving 6257 citations. Previous affiliations of Thomas M. Durcan include University of Notre Dame & McGill University.


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: It is evident that further insight into how PTMs regulate the PINK1-PARKIN pathway will be critical for the understanding of mitochondrial quality control.
Abstract: Two Parkinson's disease (PD)-associated proteins, the mitochondrial kinase PINK1 and the E3-ubiquitin (Ub) ligase PARKIN, are central to mitochondrial quality control. In this pathway, PINK1 accumulates on defective mitochondria, eliciting the translocation of PARKIN from the cytosol to mediate the clearance of damaged mitochondria via autophagy (mitophagy). Throughout the different stages of mitophagy, post-translational modifications (PTMs) are critical for the regulation of PINK1 and PARKIN activity and function. Indeed, activation and recruitment of PARKIN onto damaged mitochondria involves PINK1-mediated phosphorylation of both PARKIN and Ub. Through a stepwise cascade, PARKIN is converted from an autoinhibited enzyme into an active phospho-Ub-dependent E3 ligase. Upon activation, PARKIN ubiquitinates itself in concert with many different mitochondrial substrates. The Ub conjugates attached to these substrates can in turn be phosphorylated by PINK1, which triggers further cycles of PARKIN recruitment and activation. This feed-forward amplification loop regulates both PARKIN activity and mitophagy. However, the precise steps and sequence of PTMs in this cascade are only now being uncovered. For instance, the Ub conjugates assembled by PARKIN consist predominantly of noncanonical K6-linked Ub chains. Moreover, these modifications are reversible and can be disassembled by deubiquitinating enzymes (DUBs), including Ub-specific protease 8 (USP8), USP15, and USP30. However, PINK1-mediated phosphorylation of Ub can impede the activity of these DUBs, adding a new layer of complexity to the regulation of PARKIN-mediated mitophagy by PTMs. It is therefore evident that further insight into how PTMs regulate the PINK1–PARKIN pathway will be critical for our understanding of mitochondrial quality control.

306 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: It is reported here that USP8/UBPY, a deubiquitinating enzyme not previously implicated in mitochondrial quality control, is critical for parkin‐mediated mitophagy and uncovers a novel role forUSP8‐mediated deUBiquitination of K6‐linked ubiquitin conjugates from parkin in mitochondrialquality control.
Abstract: Mutations in the Park2 gene, encoding the E3 ubiquitin-ligase parkin, are responsible for a familial form of Parkinson's disease (PD). Parkin-mediated ubiquitination is critical for the efficient elimination of depolarized dysfunctional mitochondria by autophagy (mitophagy). As damaged mitochondria are a major source of toxic reactive oxygen species within the cell, this pathway is believed to be highly relevant to the pathogenesis of PD. Little is known about how parkin-mediated ubiquitination is regulated during mitophagy or about the nature of the ubiquitin conjugates involved. We report here that USP8/UBPY, a deubiquitinating enzyme not previously implicated in mitochondrial quality control, is critical for parkin-mediated mitophagy. USP8 preferentially removes non-canonical K6-linked ubiquitin chains from parkin, a process required for the efficient recruitment of parkin to depolarized mitochondria and for their subsequent elimination by mitophagy. This work uncovers a novel role for USP8-mediated deubiquitination of K6-linked ubiquitin conjugates from parkin in mitochondrial quality control.

291 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
20 Apr 2018-eLife
TL;DR: The mechanism by which Mfn2, a mitochondria-ER tether, gates the autophagic turnover of mitochondria by PINK1 and parkin is described, which suppresses mitophagy and describes a parkin-/PINK1-dependent mechanism that regulates the destruction of mitochondrial-ER contact sites.
Abstract: Despite their importance as signaling hubs, the function of mitochondria-ER contact sites in mitochondrial quality control pathways remains unexplored. Here we describe a mechanism by which Mfn2, a mitochondria-ER tether, gates the autophagic turnover of mitochondria by PINK1 and parkin. Mitochondria-ER appositions are destroyed during mitophagy, and reducing mitochondria-ER contacts increases the rate of mitochondrial degradation. Mechanistically, parkin/PINK1 catalyze a rapid burst of Mfn2 phosphoubiquitination to trigger p97-dependent disassembly of Mfn2 complexes from the outer mitochondrial membrane, dissociating mitochondria from the ER. We additionally demonstrate that a major portion of the facilitatory effect of p97 on mitophagy is epistatic to Mfn2 and promotes the availability of other parkin substrates such as VDAC1. Finally, we reconstitute the action of these factors on Mfn2 and VDAC1 ubiquitination in a cell-free assay. We show that mitochondria-ER tethering suppresses mitophagy and describe a parkin-/PINK1-dependent mechanism that regulates the destruction of mitochondria-ER contact sites.

234 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Parkin, an E3 ubiquitin-ligase responsible for a common familial form of Parkinson's disease, is identified as a novel ataxin-3 binding partner and promoted via the autophagy pathway, raising the intriguing possibility that increased turnover of parkin may contribute to the pathogenesis of MJD and help explain some of its parkinsonian features.
Abstract: Machado–Joseph disease (MJD), the most common dominantly inherited ataxia worldwide, is caused by a polyglutamine (polyQ) expansion in the deubiquitinating (DUB) enzyme ataxin-3. Interestingly, MJD can present clinically with features of Parkinsonism. In this study, we identify parkin, an E3 ubiquitin-ligase responsible for a common familial form of Parkinson’s disease, as a novel ataxin-3 binding partner. The interaction between ataxin-3 and parkin is direct, involves multiple domains and is greatly enhanced by parkin selfubiquitination. Moreover, ataxin-3 deubiquitinates parkin directly in vitro and in cells. Compared with wildtype ataxin-3, MJD-linked polyQ-expanded mutant ataxin-3 is more active, possibly owing to its greater efficiency at DUB K27- and K29-linked Ub conjugates on parkin. Remarkably, mutant but not wild-type ataxin-3 promotes the clearance of parkin via the autophagy pathway. The finding is consistent with the reduction in parkin levels observed in the brains of transgenic mice over-expressing polyQ-expanded but not wild-type ataxin-3, raising the intriguing possibility that increased turnover of parkin may contribute to the pathogenesis of MJD and help explain some of its parkinsonian features.

135 citations


Cited by
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
David E. Gordon, Gwendolyn M. Jang, Mehdi Bouhaddou, Jiewei Xu, Kirsten Obernier, Kris M. White1, Matthew J. O’Meara2, Veronica V. Rezelj3, Jeffrey Z. Guo, Danielle L. Swaney, Tia A. Tummino4, Ruth Hüttenhain, Robyn M. Kaake, Alicia L. Richards, Beril Tutuncuoglu, Helene Foussard, Jyoti Batra, Kelsey M. Haas, Maya Modak, Minkyu Kim, Paige Haas, Benjamin J. Polacco, Hannes Braberg, Jacqueline M. Fabius, Manon Eckhardt, Margaret Soucheray, Melanie J. Bennett, Merve Cakir, Michael McGregor, Qiongyu Li, Bjoern Meyer3, Ferdinand Roesch3, Thomas Vallet3, Alice Mac Kain3, Lisa Miorin1, Elena Moreno1, Zun Zar Chi Naing, Yuan Zhou, Shiming Peng4, Ying Shi, Ziyang Zhang, Wenqi Shen, Ilsa T Kirby, James E. Melnyk, John S. Chorba, Kevin Lou, Shizhong Dai, Inigo Barrio-Hernandez5, Danish Memon5, Claudia Hernandez-Armenta5, Jiankun Lyu4, Christopher J.P. Mathy, Tina Perica4, Kala Bharath Pilla4, Sai J. Ganesan4, Daniel J. Saltzberg4, Rakesh Ramachandran4, Xi Liu4, Sara Brin Rosenthal6, Lorenzo Calviello4, Srivats Venkataramanan4, Jose Liboy-Lugo4, Yizhu Lin4, Xi Ping Huang7, Yongfeng Liu7, Stephanie A. Wankowicz, Markus Bohn4, Maliheh Safari4, Fatima S. Ugur, Cassandra Koh3, Nastaran Sadat Savar3, Quang Dinh Tran3, Djoshkun Shengjuler3, Sabrina J. Fletcher3, Michael C. O’Neal, Yiming Cai, Jason C.J. Chang, David J. Broadhurst, Saker Klippsten, Phillip P. Sharp4, Nicole A. Wenzell4, Duygu Kuzuoğlu-Öztürk4, Hao-Yuan Wang4, Raphael Trenker4, Janet M. Young8, Devin A. Cavero4, Devin A. Cavero9, Joseph Hiatt9, Joseph Hiatt4, Theodore L. Roth, Ujjwal Rathore4, Ujjwal Rathore9, Advait Subramanian4, Julia Noack4, Mathieu Hubert3, Robert M. Stroud4, Alan D. Frankel4, Oren S. Rosenberg, Kliment A. Verba4, David A. Agard4, Melanie Ott, Michael Emerman8, Natalia Jura, Mark von Zastrow, Eric Verdin10, Eric Verdin4, Alan Ashworth4, Olivier Schwartz3, Christophe d'Enfert3, Shaeri Mukherjee4, Matthew P. Jacobson4, Harmit S. Malik8, Danica Galonić Fujimori, Trey Ideker6, Charles S. Craik, Stephen N. Floor4, James S. Fraser4, John D. Gross4, Andrej Sali, Bryan L. Roth7, Davide Ruggero, Jack Taunton4, Tanja Kortemme, Pedro Beltrao5, Marco Vignuzzi3, Adolfo García-Sastre, Kevan M. Shokat, Brian K. Shoichet4, Nevan J. Krogan 
30 Apr 2020-Nature
TL;DR: 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.
Abstract: 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.

3,319 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

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: A functional classification of cell death subroutines is proposed that applies to both in vitro and in vivo settings and includes extrinsic apoptosis, caspase-dependent or -independent intrinsic programmed cell death, regulated necrosis, autophagic cell death and mitotic catastrophe.
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.

2,238 citations

Journal Article
TL;DR: The International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society (MDS) Clinical Diagnostic Criteria for Parkinson9s disease as discussed by the authors have been proposed for clinical diagnosis, which are intended for use in clinical research, but may also be used to guide clinical diagnosis.
Abstract: Objective To present the International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society (MDS) Clinical Diagnostic Criteria for Parkinson9s disease. Background Although several diagnostic criteria for Parkinson9s disease have been proposed, none have been officially adopted by an official Parkinson society. Moreover, the commonest-used criteria, the UK brain bank, were created more than 25 years ago. In recognition of the lack of standard criteria, the MDS initiated a task force to design new diagnostic criteria for clinical Parkinson9s disease. Methods/Results The MDS-PD Criteria are intended for use in clinical research, but may also be used to guide clinical diagnosis. The benchmark is expert clinical diagnosis; the criteria aim to systematize the diagnostic process, to make it reproducible across centers and applicable by clinicians with less expertise. Although motor abnormalities remain central, there is increasing recognition of non-motor manifestations; these are incorporated into both the current criteria and particularly into separate criteria for prodromal PD. Similar to previous criteria, the MDS-PD Criteria retain motor parkinsonism as the core disease feature, defined as bradykinesia plus rest tremor and/or rigidity. Explicit instructions for defining these cardinal features are included. After documentation of parkinsonism, determination of PD as the cause of parkinsonism relies upon three categories of diagnostic features; absolute exclusion criteria (which rule out PD), red flags (which must be counterbalanced by additional supportive criteria to allow diagnosis of PD), and supportive criteria (positive features that increase confidence of PD diagnosis). Two levels of certainty are delineated: Clinically-established PD (maximizing specificity at the expense of reduced sensitivity), and Probable PD (which balances sensitivity and specificity). Conclusion The MDS criteria retain elements proven valuable in previous criteria and omit aspects that are no longer justified, thereby encapsulating diagnosis according to current knowledge. As understanding of PD expands, criteria will need continuous revision to accommodate these advances. Disclosure: Dr. Postuma has received personal compensation for activities with Roche Diagnostics Corporation and Biotie Therapies. Dr. Berg has received research support from Michael J. Fox Foundation, the Bundesministerium fur Bildung und Forschung (BMBF), the German Parkinson Association and Novartis GmbH.

1,655 citations