scispace - formally typeset

Institution

National University of Cuyo

EducationMendoza, 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.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
Daniel J. Klionsky1, Kotb Abdelmohsen2, Akihisa Abe3, Joynal Abedin4  +2519 moreInstitutions (695)
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

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.

3,426 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
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

Journal ArticleDOI
17 Dec 2004-Cell
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

Journal ArticleDOI
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

NameH-indexPapersCitations
David G. Bostwick9940331638
Elbio Dagotto6753327172
Facundo Manes6624518946
Marcela Carena6319240884
Daniel Batlle5824311557
M. Gómez Berisso5822113924
Agustín Ibáñez543379032
Leonid V. Zhigilei521949965
David M. Spooner511878974
Hernán Asorey5117111047
Raúl A. Baragiola482317932
Gerardo F. Goya482018972
María Isabel Colombo4823118322
Vittorio Erspamer481529666
Ramon Codina472108199
Network Information
Related Institutions (5)
Complutense University of Madrid

90.2K papers, 2.1M citations

83% related

Autonomous University of Madrid

52.8K papers, 1.6M citations

83% related

University of Valencia

65.6K papers, 1.7M citations

82% related

University of Barcelona

108.5K papers, 3.7M citations

81% related

University of Granada

59.2K papers, 1.4M citations

81% related

Performance
Metrics
No. of papers from the Institution in previous years
YearPapers
202217
2021356
2020378
2019323
2018287
2017275