scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

Won-Ki Huh

Bio: Won-Ki Huh is an academic researcher from Seoul National University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Saccharomyces cerevisiae & Bimolecular fluorescence complementation. The author has an hindex of 24, co-authored 61 publications receiving 18305 citations. Previous affiliations of Won-Ki Huh include University of California, San Francisco.


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: These guidelines are presented 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.
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.

4,316 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
16 Oct 2003-Nature
TL;DR: The construction and analysis of a collection of yeast strains expressing full-length, chromosomally tagged green fluorescent protein fusion proteins helps reveal the logic of transcriptional co-regulation, and provides a comprehensive view of interactions within and between organelles in eukaryotic cells.
Abstract: A fundamental goal of cell biology is to define the functions of proteins in the context of compartments that organize them in the cellular environment. Here we describe the construction and analysis of a collection of yeast strains expressing full-length, chromosomally tagged green fluorescent protein fusion proteins. We classify these proteins, representing 75% of the yeast proteome, into 22 distinct subcellular localization categories, and provide localization information for 70% of previously unlocalized proteins. Analysis of this high-resolution, high-coverage localization data set in the context of transcriptional, genetic, and protein-protein interaction data helps reveal the logic of transcriptional co-regulation, and provides a comprehensive view of interactions within and between organelles in eukaryotic cells.

4,310 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
16 Oct 2003-Nature
TL;DR: A Saccharomyces cerevisiae fusion library is created where each open reading frame is tagged with a high-affinity epitope and expressed from its natural chromosomal location, and it is found that about 80% of the proteome is expressed during normal growth conditions.
Abstract: The availability of complete genomic sequences and technologies that allow comprehensive analysis of global expression profiles of messenger RNA have greatly expanded our ability to monitor the internal state of a cell. Yet biological systems ultimately need to be explained in terms of the activity, regulation and modification of proteins--and the ubiquitous occurrence of post-transcriptional regulation makes mRNA an imperfect proxy for such information. To facilitate global protein analyses, we have created a Saccharomyces cerevisiae fusion library where each open reading frame is tagged with a high-affinity epitope and expressed from its natural chromosomal location. Through immunodetection of the common tag, we obtain a census of proteins expressed during log-phase growth and measurements of their absolute levels. We find that about 80% of the proteome is expressed during normal growth conditions, and, using additional sequence information, we systematically identify misannotated genes. The abundance of proteins ranges from fewer than 50 to more than 10(6) molecules per cell. Many of these molecules, including essential proteins and most transcription factors, are present at levels that are not readily detectable by other proteomic techniques nor predictable by mRNA levels or codon bias measurements.

3,894 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
03 Dec 2010-Science
TL;DR: Using an approach called differential epistasis mapping, widespread changes in genetic interaction are discovered among yeast kinases, phosphatases, and transcription factors as the cell responds to DNA damage, uncovering many gene functions that go undetected in static conditions.
Abstract: Although cellular behaviors are dynamic, the networks that govern these behaviors have been mapped primarily as static snapshots. Using an approach called differential epistasis mapping, we have discovered widespread changes in genetic interaction among yeast kinases, phosphatases, and transcription factors as the cell responds to DNA damage. Differential interactions uncover many gene functions that go undetected in static conditions. They are very effective at identifying DNA repair pathways, highlighting new damage-dependent roles for the Slt2 kinase, Pph3 phosphatase, and histone variant Htz1. The data also reveal that protein complexes are generally stable in response to perturbation, but the functional relations between these complexes are substantially reorganized. Differential networks chart a new type of genetic landscape that is invaluable for mapping cellular responses to stimuli.

464 citations


Cited by
More filters
28 Jul 2005
TL;DR: PfPMP1)与感染红细胞、树突状组胞以及胎盘的单个或多个受体作用,在黏附及免疫逃避中起关键的作�ly.
Abstract: 抗原变异可使得多种致病微生物易于逃避宿主免疫应答。表达在感染红细胞表面的恶性疟原虫红细胞表面蛋白1(PfPMP1)与感染红细胞、内皮细胞、树突状细胞以及胎盘的单个或多个受体作用,在黏附及免疫逃避中起关键的作用。每个单倍体基因组var基因家族编码约60种成员,通过启动转录不同的var基因变异体为抗原变异提供了分子基础。

18,940 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: MaxQuant, an integrated suite of algorithms specifically developed for high-resolution, quantitative MS data, detects peaks, isotope clusters and stable amino acid isotope–labeled (SILAC) peptide pairs as three-dimensional objects in m/z, elution time and signal intensity space and achieves mass accuracy in the p.p.b. range.
Abstract: Efficient analysis of very large amounts of raw data for peptide identification and protein quantification is a principal challenge in mass spectrometry (MS)-based proteomics. Here we describe MaxQuant, an integrated suite of algorithms specifically developed for high-resolution, quantitative MS data. Using correlation analysis and graph theory, MaxQuant detects peaks, isotope clusters and stable amino acid isotope-labeled (SILAC) peptide pairs as three-dimensional objects in m/z, elution time and signal intensity space. By integrating multiple mass measurements and correcting for linear and nonlinear mass offsets, we achieve mass accuracy in the p.p.b. range, a sixfold increase over standard techniques. We increase the proportion of identified fragmentation spectra to 73% for SILAC peptide pairs via unambiguous assignment of isotope and missed-cleavage state and individual mass precision. MaxQuant automatically quantifies several hundred thousand peptides per SILAC-proteome experiment and allows statistically robust identification and quantification of >4,000 proteins in mammalian cell lysates.

12,340 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

01 Aug 2000
TL;DR: Assessment of medical technology in the context of commercialization with Bioentrepreneur course, which addresses many issues unique to biomedical products.
Abstract: BIOE 402. Medical Technology Assessment. 2 or 3 hours. Bioentrepreneur course. Assessment of medical technology in the context of commercialization. Objectives, competition, market share, funding, pricing, manufacturing, growth, and intellectual property; many issues unique to biomedical products. Course Information: 2 undergraduate hours. 3 graduate hours. Prerequisite(s): Junior standing or above and consent of the instructor.

4,833 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
16 Oct 2003-Nature
TL;DR: The construction and analysis of a collection of yeast strains expressing full-length, chromosomally tagged green fluorescent protein fusion proteins helps reveal the logic of transcriptional co-regulation, and provides a comprehensive view of interactions within and between organelles in eukaryotic cells.
Abstract: A fundamental goal of cell biology is to define the functions of proteins in the context of compartments that organize them in the cellular environment. Here we describe the construction and analysis of a collection of yeast strains expressing full-length, chromosomally tagged green fluorescent protein fusion proteins. We classify these proteins, representing 75% of the yeast proteome, into 22 distinct subcellular localization categories, and provide localization information for 70% of previously unlocalized proteins. Analysis of this high-resolution, high-coverage localization data set in the context of transcriptional, genetic, and protein-protein interaction data helps reveal the logic of transcriptional co-regulation, and provides a comprehensive view of interactions within and between organelles in eukaryotic cells.

4,310 citations