Xiao Ming Yin

Bio: Xiao Ming Yin is an academic researcher from Indiana University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Autophagy & Apoptosis. The author has an hindex of 70, co-authored 174 publications receiving 33752 citations. Previous affiliations of Xiao Ming Yin include University of Pittsburgh & Washington University in St. Louis.

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

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.

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy in higher eukaryotes

Abstract: Research in autophagy continues to accelerate,(1) and as a result many new scientists are entering the field Accordingly, it is important to establish a standard set of criteria for monitoring macroautophagy in different organisms Recent reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose(2,3) There are many useful and convenient methods that can be used to monitor macroautophagy in yeast, but relatively few in other model systems, and there is much confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure macroautophagy in higher eukaryotes A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers of autophagosomes versus those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway; thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from fully functional autophagy that includes delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi) Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of the methods that can be used by investigators who are attempting to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as by reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that investigate these processes This set of guidelines is 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 verify an autophagic response

BH1 and BH2 domains of Bcl-2 are required for inhibition of apoptosis and heterodimerization with Bax

Abstract: BCL-2 was isolated from the t(14;18) chromosomal breakpoint in follicular B-cell lymphoma1–3. Bcl-2 has the unique oncogenic role of extending cell survival by inhibiting a variety of apoptotic deaths4–13. An emerging family of Bcl-2 -related proteins share two highly conserved regions14–20 referred to here as Bcl-2 homology 1 and 2 (BH1 and BH2) domains (Fig. 1). This includes Bax which heterodimerizes with Bcl-2 and when overexpressed counteracts Bcl-214. We report here that site-specific mutagenesis of Bcl-2 establishes the two domains as novel dimerization motifs. Substitu-tion of Gly 145 in BHl domain or Trp 188 in BH2 domain completely abrogated Bcl-2's death-repressor activity in inter-leukin-3 deprivation, γ-irradiation and glucocorticoid-induced apoptosis. Mutations that affected Bcl-2's function also disrupted its heterodimerization with Bax, yet still permitted Bcl-2 homo-dimerization. These results establish a functional role for the BH1 and BH2 domains and suggest Bcl-2 exerts its action through heterodimerization with Bax.

Free Radicals in the Physiological Control of Cell Function

Abstract: At high concentrations, free radicals and radical-derived, nonradical reactive species are hazardous for living organisms and damage all major cellular constituents. At moderate concentrations, how...

Mitochondria and apoptosis

Abstract: A variety of key events in apoptosis focus on mitochondria, including the release of caspase activators (such as cytochrome c), changes in electron transport, loss of mitochondrial transmembrane potential, altered cellular oxidation-reduction, and participation of pro- and antiapoptotic Bcl-2 family proteins. The different signals that converge on mitochondria to trigger or inhibit these events and their downstream effects delineate several major pathways in physiological cell death.

The biochemistry of apoptosis

Abstract: Apoptosis - the regulated destruction of a cell - is a complicated process. The decision to die cannot be taken lightly, and the activity of many genes influence a cell's likelihood of activating its self-destruction programme. Once the decision is taken, proper execution of the apoptotic programme requires the coordinated activation and execution of multiple subprogrammes. Here I review the basic components of the death machinery, describe how they interact to regulate apoptosis in a coordinated manner, and discuss the main pathways that are used to activate cell death.

Apoptosis in the pathogenesis and treatment of disease

Abstract: In multicellular organisms, homeostasis is maintained through a balance between cell proliferation and cell death. Although much is known about the control of cell proliferation, less is known about the control of cell death. Physiologic cell death occurs primarily through an evolutionarily conserved form of cell suicide termed apoptosis. The decision of a cell to undergo apoptosis can be influenced by a wide variety of regulatory stimuli. Recent evidence suggests that alterations in cell survival contribute to the pathogenesis of a number of human diseases, including cancer, viral infections, autoimmune diseases, neurodegenerative disorders, and AIDS (acquired immunodeficiency syndrome). Treatments designed to specifically alter the apoptotic threshold may have the potential to change the natural progression of some of these diseases.

The Bcl-2 Protein Family: Arbiters of Cell Survival

Abstract: Bcl-2 and related cytoplasmic proteins are key regulators of apoptosis, the cell suicide program critical for development, tissue homeostasis, and protection against pathogens. Those most similar to Bcl-2 promote cell survival by inhibiting adapters needed for activation of the proteases (caspases) that dismantle the cell. More distant relatives instead promote apoptosis, apparently through mechanisms that include displacing the adapters from the pro-survival proteins. Thus, for many but not all apoptotic signals, the balance between these competing activities determines cell fate. Bcl-2 family members are essential for maintenance of major organ systems, and mutations affecting them are implicated in cancer.