Kyoto Sangyo University

About: Kyoto Sangyo University is a education organization based out in Kyoto, Kyôto, Japan. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Gravitational microlensing. The organization has 1274 authors who have published 3607 publications receiving 69863 citations. The organization is also known as: Kyoto sangyō daigaku.

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.

Tumor-associated macrophages as major players in the tumor microenvironment.

Abstract: During tumor progression, circulating monocytes and macrophages are actively recruited into tumors where they alter the tumor microenvironment to accelerate tumor progression. Macrophages shift their functional phenotypes in response to various microenvironmental signals generated from tumor and stromal cells. Based on their function, macrophages are divided broadly into two categories: classical M1 and alternative M2 macrophages. The M1 macrophage is involved in the inflammatory response, pathogen clearance, and antitumor immunity. In contrast, the M2 macrophage influences an anti-inflammatory response, wound healing, and pro-tumorigenic properties. Tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) closely resemble the M2-polarized macrophages and are critical modulators of the tumor microenvironment. Clinicopathological studies have suggested that TAM accumulation in tumors correlates with a poor clinical outcome. Consistent with that evidence, experimental and animal studies have supported the notion that TAMs can provide a favorable microenvironment to promote tumor development and progression. In this review article, we present an overview of mechanisms responsible for TAM recruitment and highlight the roles of TAMs in the regulation of tumor angiogenesis, invasion, metastasis, immunosuppression, and chemotherapeutic resistance. Finally, we discuss TAM-targeting therapy as a promising novel strategy for an indirect cancer therapy.

Ubiquitin is phosphorylated by PINK1 to activate parkin

Abstract: Ubiquitin, known for its role in post-translational modification of other proteins, undergoes post-translational modification itself; after a decrease in mitochondrial membrane potential, the kinase enzyme PINK1 phosphorylates ubiquitin at Ser 65, and the phosphorylated ubiquitin then interacts with ubiquitin ligase (E3) enzyme parkin, which is also phosphorylated by PINK1, and this process is sufficient for full activation of parkin enzymatic activity. The small protein ubiquitin, familiar for its role in post-translational modification of other proteins by binding to them and regulating their activity or stability, is shown here to be the substrate of the kinase PINK1, which together with the ubiquitin ligase parkin is a causal gene for hereditary recessive Parkinsonism. Noriyuki Matsuda and colleagues show that following a decrease in mitochondrial membrane potential, PINK1 phosphorylates ubiquitin at serine residue 65; the phosphorylated ubiquitin then interacts with parkin, which is also phosphorylated by PINK1. This interaction allows full activation of parkin enzymatic activity, which involves tagging mitochondrial substrates with ubiquitin. PINK1 (PTEN induced putative kinase 1) and PARKIN (also known as PARK2) have been identified as the causal genes responsible for hereditary recessive early-onset Parkinsonism1,2. PINK1 is a Ser/Thr kinase that specifically accumulates on depolarized mitochondria, whereas parkin is an E3 ubiquitin ligase that catalyses ubiquitin transfer to mitochondrial substrates3,4,5. PINK1 acts as an upstream factor for parkin6,7 and is essential both for the activation of latent E3 parkin activity8 and for recruiting parkin onto depolarized mitochondria8,9,10,11,12. Recently, mechanistic insights into mitochondrial quality control mediated by PINK1 and parkin have been revealed3,4,5, and PINK1-dependent phosphorylation of parkin has been reported13,14,15. However, the requirement of PINK1 for parkin activation was not bypassed by phosphomimetic parkin mutation15, and how PINK1 accelerates the E3 activity of parkin on damaged mitochondria is still obscure. Here we report that ubiquitin is the genuine substrate of PINK1. PINK1 phosphorylated ubiquitin at Ser 65 both in vitro and in cells, and a Ser 65 phosphopeptide derived from endogenous ubiquitin was only detected in cells in the presence of PINK1 and following a decrease in mitochondrial membrane potential. Unexpectedly, phosphomimetic ubiquitin bypassed PINK1-dependent activation of a phosphomimetic parkin mutant in cells. Furthermore, phosphomimetic ubiquitin accelerates discharge of the thioester conjugate formed by UBCH7 (also known as UBE2L3) and ubiquitin (UBCH7∼ubiquitin) in the presence of parkin in vitro, indicating that it acts allosterically. The phosphorylation-dependent interaction between ubiquitin and parkin suggests that phosphorylated ubiquitin unlocks autoinhibition of the catalytic cysteine. Our results show that PINK1-dependent phosphorylation of both parkin and ubiquitin is sufficient for full activation of parkin E3 activity. These findings demonstrate that phosphorylated ubiquitin is a parkin activator.

Salience of feedback on error and its effect on efl writing quality

Abstract: To date, few empirical studies have been designed to evaluate the effects of different types of feedback on error in the written work of second language writers. The study reported in this article contrasted four methods of providing feedback on written error. These methods differed in the degree of salience provided to the writer in the revision process. In the study, a factor analysis was used to reduce an initial set of 19 measures of writing skill to a subset of 7. Each of the 7 measures in the subset was then used as a dependent variable in an analysis of covariance design which contrasted the effects of the feedback methods on subsequent narrative compositions. Evidence against direct correction of error in written work is discussed.