| 1. |
|
|
| 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. |
- Romeralo, Maria, et al.
(författare)
-
Evolution and Diversity of Dictyostelid Social Amoebae
- 2012
-
Ingår i: Protist. - : Elsevier BV. - 1434-4610 .- 1618-0941. ; 163:3, s. 327-343
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Dictyostelid social amoebae are a large and ancient group of soil microbes with an unusual multicellular stage in their life cycle. Taxonomically, they belong to the eukaryotic supergroup Amoebozoa, the sister group to Opisthokonta (animals + fungi). Roughly half of the similar to 150 known dictyostelid species were discovered during the last five years and probably many more remain to be found. The traditional classification system of Dictyostelia was completely overturned by cladistic analyses and molecular phylogenies of the past six years. As a result, it now appears that, instead of three major divisions there are eight, none of which correspond to traditional higher-level taxa. In addition to the widely studied Dictyostelium discoideum, there are now efforts to develop model organisms and complete genome sequences for each major group. Thus Dictyostelia is becoming an excellent model for both practical, medically related research and for studying basic principles in cell-cell communication and developmental evolution. In this review we summarize the latest information about their life cycle, taxonomy, evolutionary history, genome projects and practical importance.
|
|
| 4. |
- Sheikh, Sanea, et al.
(författare)
-
A New Classification of the Dictyostelids
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Protist. - : Elsevier BV. - 1434-4610 .- 1618-0941. ; 169:1, s. 1-28
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Traditional morphology-based taxonomy of dictyostelids is rejected by molecular phylogeny. A new classification is presented based on monophyletic entities with consistent and strong molecular phylogenetic support and that are, as far as possible, morphologically recognizable. All newly named clades are diagnosed with small subunit ribosomal RNA (18S rRNA) sequence signatures plus morphological synapomorphies where possible. The two major molecular clades are given the rank of order, as Acytosteliales ord. nov. and Dictyosteliales. The two major clades within each of these orders are recognized and given the rank of family as, respectively, Acytosteliaceae and Cavenderiaceae fam. nov. in Acytosteliales, and Dictyosteliaceae and Raperosteliaceae fam. nov. in Dictyosteliales. Twelve genera are recognized: Cavenderia gen. nov. in Cavenderiaceae, Acytostelium, Rostrostelium gen. nov. and Heterostelium gen. nov. in Acytosteliaceae, Tieghemostelium gen. nov., Hagiwaraea gen. nov., Raperostelium gen. nov. and Speleostelium gen. nov. in Raperosteliaceae, and Dictyostelium and Polysphondylium in Dictyosteliaceae. The “polycephalum” complex is treated as Coremiostelium gen. nov. (not assigned to family) and the “polycarpum” complex as Synstelium gen. nov. (not assigned to order and family). Coenonia, which may not be a dictyostelid, is treated as a genus incertae sedis. Eighty-eight new combinations are made at species and variety level, and Dictyostelium ammophilum is validated.
|
|
