| 1. |
- Boele, Joost, et al.
(författare)
-
PAPD5-mediated 3' adenylation and subsequent degradation of miR-21 is disrupted in proliferative disease.
- 2014
-
Ingår i: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. - : Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. - 1091-6490 .- 0027-8424. ; 111:31, s. 11467-11472
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Next-generation sequencing experiments have shown that microRNAs (miRNAs) are expressed in many different isoforms (isomiRs), whose biological relevance is often unclear. We found that mature miR-21, the most widely researched miRNA because of its importance in human disease, is produced in two prevalent isomiR forms that differ by 1 nt at their 3' end, and moreover that the 3' end of miR-21 is posttranscriptionally adenylated by the noncanonical poly(A) polymerase PAPD5. PAPD5 knockdown caused an increase in the miR-21 expression level, suggesting that PAPD5-mediated adenylation of miR-21 leads to its degradation. Exoribonuclease knockdown experiments followed by small-RNA sequencing suggested that PARN degrades miR-21 in the 3'-to-5' direction. In accordance with this model, microarray expression profiling demonstrated that PAPD5 knockdown results in a down-regulation of miR-21 target mRNAs. We found that disruption of the miR-21 adenylation and degradation pathway is a general feature in tumors across a wide range of tissues, as evidenced by data from The Cancer Genome Atlas, as well as in the noncancerous proliferative disease psoriasis. We conclude that PAPD5 and PARN mediate degradation of oncogenic miRNA miR-21 through a tailing and trimming process, and that this pathway is disrupted in cancer and other proliferative diseases.
|
|
| 2. |
- Klionsky, Daniel J., et al.
(författare)
-
Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy
- 2012
-
Ingår i: Autophagy. - : Informa UK Limited. - 1554-8635 .- 1554-8627. ; 8:4, s. 445-544
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)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. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Klionsky, Daniel J., et al.
(författare)
-
Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy in higher eukaryotes
- 2008
-
Ingår i: Autophagy. - : Landes Bioscience. - 1554-8627 .- 1554-8635. ; 4:2, s. 151-175
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)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.
|
|
| 5. |
- Ravasi, Timothy, et al.
(författare)
-
An Atlas of Combinatorial Transcriptional Regulation in Mouse and Man
- 2010
-
Ingår i: CELL. - : Elsevier BV. - 0092-8674 .- 1097-4172. ; 140:5, s. 744-752
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Combinatorial interactions among transcription factors are critical to directing tissue-specific gene expression. To build a global atlas of these combinations, we have screened for physical interactions among the majority of human and mouse DNA-binding transcription factors (TFs). The complete networks contain 762 human and 877 mouse interactions. Analysis of the networks reveals that highly connected TFs are broadly expressed across tissues, and that roughly half of the measured interactions are conserved between mouse and human. The data highlight the importance of TF combinations for determining cell fate, and they lead to the identification of a SMAD3/FLI1 complex expressed during development of immunity. The availability of large TF combinatorial networks in both human and mouse will provide many opportunities to study gene regulation, tissue differentiation, and mammalian evolution.
|
|
