Institution
National University of Cuyo
Education•Mendoza, Argentina•
About: National University of Cuyo is a(n) education organization based out in Mendoza, Argentina. It is known for research contribution in the topic(s): Population & Exocytosis. The organization has 3175 authors who have published 4872 publication(s) receiving 83221 citation(s). The organization is also known as: National University of Cuyo.
Topics: Population, Exocytosis, Autophagy, Endosome, Magnetization
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
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.
4,756 citations
Daniel J. Klionsky1, Fábio Camargo Abdalla2, Hagai Abeliovich3, Robert T. Abraham4 +1284 more•Institutions (463)
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.
3,426 citations
Daniel J. Klionsky1, Hagai Abeliovich2, Patrizia Agostinis3, Devendra K. Agrawal4 +232 more•Institutions (137)
TL;DR: 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 are presented.
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
2,245 citations
TL;DR: It is demonstrated that autophagic pathways can overcome the trafficking block imposed by M. tuberculosis, which is a hormonally, developmentally, and immunologically regulated process, represents an underapp appreciated innate defense mechanism for control of intracellular pathogens.
Abstract: Mycobacterium tuberculosis is an intracellular pathogen persisting within phagosomes through interference with phagolysosome biogenesis. Here we show that stimulation of autophagic pathways in macrophages causes mycobacterial phagosomes to mature into phagolysosomes. Physiological induction of autophagy or its pharmacological stimulation by rapamycin resulted in mycobacterial phagosome colocalization with the autophagy effector LC3, an elongation factor in autophagosome formation. Autophagy stimulation increased phagosomal colocalization with Beclin-1, a subunit of the phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase hVPS34, necessary for autophagy and a target for mycobacterial phagosome maturation arrest. Induction of autophagy suppressed intracellular survival of mycobacteria. IFN-gamma induced autophagy in macrophages, and so did transfection with LRG-47, an effector of IFN-gamma required for antimycobacterial action. These findings demonstrate that autophagic pathways can overcome the trafficking block imposed by M. tuberculosis. Autophagy, which is a hormonally, developmentally, and, as shown here, immunologically regulated process, represents an underappreciated innate defense mechanism for control of intracellular pathogens.
1,963 citations
Cornell University1, Paris Descartes University2, University of Massachusetts Medical School3, Spanish National Research Council4, University of Rome Tor Vergata5, Boston Children's Hospital6, University of Pittsburgh7, National Scientific and Technical Research Council8, National University of Cuyo9, Albert Einstein College of Medicine10, University of California, San Francisco11, University of New Mexico12, University of Split13, Goethe University Frankfurt14, University of Helsinki15, University of Salento16, German Cancer Research Center17, Virginia Commonwealth University18, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital19, Discovery Institute20, Harvard University21, University of Tromsø22, Eötvös Loránd University23, Hungarian Academy of Sciences24, New York University25, University of Vienna26, Babraham Institute27, University of South Australia28, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center29, Howard Hughes Medical Institute30, University of Oviedo31, University of Graz32, National Institutes of Health33, City University of New York34, Queens College35, University of Tokyo36, University of Zurich37, Novartis38, Austrian Academy of Sciences39, University of Groningen40, University of Cambridge41, University of Padua42, University of Oxford43, University of Bern44, University of Oslo45, Foundation for Research & Technology – Hellas46, University of Crete47, Francis Crick Institute48, Osaka University49, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai50
TL;DR: A panel of leading experts in the field attempts here to define several autophagy‐related terms based on specific biochemical features to formulate recommendations that facilitate the dissemination of knowledge within and outside the field of autophagic research.
Abstract: Over the past two decades, the molecular machinery that underlies autophagic responses has been characterized with ever increasing precision in multiple model organisms. Moreover, it has become clear that autophagy and autophagy-related processes have profound implications for human pathophysiology. However, considerable confusion persists about the use of appropriate terms to indicate specific types of autophagy and some components of the autophagy machinery, which may have detrimental effects on the expansion of the field. Driven by the overt recognition of such a potential obstacle, a panel of leading experts in the field attempts here to define several autophagy-related terms based on specific biochemical features. The ultimate objective of this collaborative exchange is to formulate recommendations that facilitate the dissemination of knowledge within and outside the field of autophagy research.
796 citations
Authors
Showing all 3175 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
David G. Bostwick | 99 | 403 | 31638 |
Elbio Dagotto | 67 | 533 | 27172 |
Facundo Manes | 66 | 245 | 18946 |
Marcela Carena | 63 | 192 | 40884 |
Daniel Batlle | 58 | 243 | 11557 |
M. Gómez Berisso | 58 | 221 | 13924 |
Agustín Ibáñez | 54 | 337 | 9032 |
Leonid V. Zhigilei | 52 | 194 | 9965 |
David M. Spooner | 51 | 187 | 8974 |
Hernán Asorey | 51 | 171 | 11047 |
Raúl A. Baragiola | 48 | 231 | 7932 |
Gerardo F. Goya | 48 | 201 | 8972 |
María Isabel Colombo | 48 | 231 | 18322 |
Vittorio Erspamer | 48 | 152 | 9666 |
Ramon Codina | 47 | 210 | 8199 |