Author
Xuejun Jiang
Other affiliations: Polish Academy of Sciences
Bio: Xuejun Jiang is an academic researcher from Karolinska Institutet. The author has contributed to research in topics: Chaperone-mediated autophagy & Autolysosome. The author has an hindex of 5, co-authored 5 publications receiving 5105 citations. Previous affiliations of Xuejun Jiang include Polish Academy of Sciences.
Papers
More filters
••
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
••
Daniel J. Klionsky1, Amal Kamal Abdel-Aziz2, Sara Abdelfatah3, Mahmoud Abdellatif4 +2980 more•Institutions (777)
TL;DR: In this article, the authors 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.
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.
1,129 citations
••
TL;DR: Author(s): Klionsky, DJ; Abdelmohsen, K; Abe, A; Abedin, MJ; Abeliovich, H; A Frozena, AA; Adachi, H, Adeli, K, Adhihetty, PJ; Adler, SG; Agam, G; Agarwal, R; Aghi, MK; Agnello, M; Agostinis, P; Aguilar, PV; Aguirre-Ghis
Abstract: Author(s): Klionsky, DJ; Abdelmohsen, K; Abe, A; Abedin, MJ; Abeliovich, H; Arozena, AA; Adachi, H; Adams, CM; Adams, PD; Adeli, K; Adhihetty, PJ; Adler, SG; Agam, G; Agarwal, R; Aghi, MK; Agnello, M; Agostinis, P; Aguilar, PV; Aguirre-Ghiso, J; Airoldi, EM; Ait-Si-Ali, S; Akematsu, T; Akporiaye, ET; Al-Rubeai, M; Albaiceta, GM; Albanese, C; Albani, D; Albert, ML; Aldudo, J; Algul, H; Alirezaei, M; Alloza, I; Almasan, A; Almonte-Beceril, M; Alnemri, ES; Alonso, C; Altan-Bonnet, N; Altieri, DC; Alvarez, S; Alvarez-Erviti, L; Alves, S; Amadoro, G; Amano, A; Amantini, C; Ambrosio, S; Amelio, I; Amer, AO; Amessou, M; Amon, A; An, Z; Anania, FA; Andersen, SU; Andley, UP; Andreadi, CK; Andrieu-Abadie, N; Anel, A; Ann, DK; Anoopkumar-Dukie, S; Antonioli, M; Aoki, H; Apostolova, N; Aquila, S; Aquilano, K; Araki, K; Arama, E; Aranda, A; Araya, J; Arcaro, A; Arias, E; Arimoto, H; Ariosa, AR; Armstrong, JL; Arnould, T; Arsov, I; Asanuma, K; Askanas, V; Asselin, E; Atarashi, R; Atherton, SS; Atkin, JD; Attardi, LD; Auberger, P; Auburger, G; Aurelian, L; Autelli, R
54 citations
••
Tongji University1, Harbin Medical University2, Kunming Medical University3, Zhejiang University4, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine5, Nanjing Medical University6, Chinese PLA General Hospital7, Fujian Medical University8, Sichuan University9, Soochow University (Suzhou)10, Jilin University11, China Medical University (PRC)12, Zhengzhou University13, Fudan University14, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital15, Nanchang University16, Anhui Medical University17, Huazhong University of Science and Technology18, Hebei Medical University19, Third Military Medical University20, Xinxiang Medical University21, Chongqing Medical University22, Shanghai Jiao Tong University23, Central South University24, Fourth Military Medical University25
21 citations
••
TL;DR: The optimal anticoagulation intensity with INR range from 1.5 to 2.5 is safe and effective for Chinese patients with heart valve replacement, and there is no significant regional difference in the intensity of antICOagulation therapy.
Abstract: Objective
To investigate the optimal anticoagulation methods and monitoring strategy for Chinese patients undergoing heart valve replacement, which is potentially quite different from western populations.
Methods
In this multicenter prospective cohort study, the anticoagulation and monitoring strategy data was acquired from 25 773 in-hospital patients in 35 medical centers and 20 519 patients in outpatient clinic in 11 medical centers from January 1st, 2011 to December 31th, 2015.
Results
As for in-hospital patients, mean age of study population was (48.6±11.2) years old; main etiology of valve pathology was rheumatic (87.5%) origin among study cohort; 94.8% of study population received mechanical valve implantation; international normalized ratio (INR) monitoring (in all the study centers) and low-intensity anticoagulation strategy (31 hospitals chose target INR range of 1.5-2.5, and actual values of INR among 89.2% of 100 069 in-hospital monitoring samples were 1.5-2.5), with mean actual INR values of 1.84±0.53, and warfarin dosage of (2.82±0.93) mg/d were widely adopted among the study centers; strategies of in-hospital warfarin administration were similar in all the study centers; complication rates of low-intensity anticoagulation strategy were low in severe hemorrhage (0.02%), thrombosis (0.05%), and thromboembolism (0.05%) events, without anticoagulation-related death.As for 18 974 outpatient clinic patients, the follow-up rate was 92.47%, with a total of 30 012 patient-years (Pty). Anticoagulation-related morbidity and mortality rates were 0.67% and 0.15% Pty; major hemorrhage morbidity and mortality rates were 0.25% and 0.13% Pty; thromboembolism morbidity and mortality rates were 0.45% and 0.03% Pty.The mean dosage of warfarin daily dosage was (2.85±1.23) mg/d and INR value was 1.82±0.57.No significant regional difference in the intensity of anticoagulation therapy was noted during the study.
Conclusions
INR can be used as a normalized indicator for intensity of anticoagulation therapy in China.The optimal anticoagulation intensity with INR range from 1.5 to 2.5 is safe and effective for Chinese patients with heart valve replacement, and there is no significant regional difference in the intensity of anticoagulation therapy.
Key words:
Heart valve prosthesis implantation; Low-intensity anticoagulation therapy; Multicenter study; Follow-up studies
13 citations
Cited by
More filters
••
Lorenzo Galluzzi1, Lorenzo Galluzzi2, Ilio Vitale3, Stuart A. Aaronson4 +183 more•Institutions (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
••
French Institute of Health and Medical Research1, University of Paris-Sud2, Institut Gustave Roussy3, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center4, Thomas Jefferson University5, University of Massachusetts Medical School6, Roswell Park Cancer Institute7, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine8, Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center9, Goethe University Frankfurt10, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital11, University of Zurich12, University College London13, South Australia Pathology14, University of Adelaide15, Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research16, University of Graz17, Istituto Superiore di Sanità18, University of Michigan19, Northwestern University20, University of Rome Tor Vergata21, University of Cambridge22, University of Bern23, Ghent University24, Harvard University25, Karolinska Institutet26, University of Leicester27
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
••
TL;DR: A way forward is suggested for the effective targeting of autophagy by understanding the context-dependent roles of autophile and by capitalizing on modern approaches to clinical trial design.
Abstract: Autophagy is a mechanism by which cellular material is delivered to lysosomes for degradation, leading to the basal turnover of cell components and providing energy and macromolecular precursors. Autophagy has opposing, context-dependent roles in cancer, and interventions to both stimulate and inhibit autophagy have been proposed as cancer therapies. This has led to the therapeutic targeting of autophagy in cancer to be sometimes viewed as controversial. In this Review, we suggest a way forwards for the effective targeting of autophagy by understanding the context-dependent roles of autophagy and by capitalizing on modern approaches to clinical trial design.
1,606 citations
••
TL;DR: It is shown that CQ mainly inhibits autophagy by impairing autophagosome fusion with lysosomes rather than by affecting the acidity and/or degradative activity of this organelle.
Abstract: Macroautophagy/autophagy is a conserved transport pathway where targeted structures are sequestered by phagophores, which mature into autophagosomes, and then delivered into lysosomes for degradati...
1,178 citations
••
Daniel J. Klionsky1, Amal Kamal Abdel-Aziz2, Sara Abdelfatah3, Mahmoud Abdellatif4 +2980 more•Institutions (777)
TL;DR: In this article, the authors 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.
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.
1,129 citations