| 1. |
- 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.
|
|
| 2. |
- Rangel-Salazar, Ruben, et al.
(författare)
-
Human native lipoprotein-induced de novo DNA methylation is associated with repression of inflammatory genes in THP-1 macrophages
- 2011
-
Ingår i: BMC Genomics. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1471-2164. ; 12
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: We previously showed that a VLDL-and LDL-rich mix of human native lipoproteins induces a set of repressive epigenetic marks, i. e. de novo DNA methylation, histone 4 hypoacetylation and histone 4 lysine 20 (H4K20) hypermethylation in THP-1 macrophages. Here, we: 1) ask what gene expression changes accompany these epigenetic responses; 2) test the involvement of candidate factors mediating the latter. We exploited genome expression arrays to identify target genes for lipoprotein-induced silencing, in addition to RNAi and expression studies to test the involvement of candidate mediating factors. The study was conducted in human THP-1 macrophages. Results: Native lipoprotein-induced de novo DNA methylation was associated with a general repression of various critical genes for macrophage function, including pro-inflammatory genes. Lipoproteins showed differential effects on epigenetic marks, as de novo DNA methylation was induced by VLDL and to a lesser extent by LDL, but not by HDL, and VLDL induced H4K20 hypermethylation, while HDL caused H4 deacetylation. The analysis of candidate factors mediating VLDL-induced DNA hypermethylation revealed that this response was: 1) surprisingly, mediated exclusively by the canonical maintenance DNA methyltransferase DNMT1, and 2) independent of the Dicer/microRNA pathway. Conclusions: Our work provides novel insights into epigenetic gene regulation by native lipoproteins. Furthermore, we provide an example of DNMT1 acting as a de novo DNA methyltransferase independently of canonical de novo enzymes, and show proof of principle that de novo DNA methylation can occur independently of a functional Dicer/micro-RNA pathway in mammals.
|
|
