| 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. |
- Leary, Sophie E. C., et al.
(författare)
-
Yersinia outer proteins (YOPS) E, K and N are antigenic but non-protective compared to V antigen, in a murine model of bubonic plague
- 1999
-
Ingår i: Microbial Pathogenesis. - : Elsevier. - 0882-4010 .- 1096-1208. ; 26:3, s. 159-169
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The pathogenic Yersiniae produce a range of virulence proteins, encoded by a 70 kb plasmid, which are essential for infection, and also form part of a contact-dependent virulence mechanism. One of these proteins, V antigen, has been shown to confer a high level of protection against parenteral infection with Y. pestis in murine models, and is considered to be a protective antigen. In this study, the protective efficacy of V antigen has been compared in the same model with that of other proteins (YopE, YopK and YopN), which are part of the contact-dependent virulence mechanism. Mice immunised with two intraperitoneal doses of V antigen or each of the Yops, administered with either Alhydrogel or interleukin-12, produced high antigen-specific serum IgG titres. As shown in previous studies, V+Alhydrogel was fully protective, and 5/5 mice survived a subcutaneous challenge with 90 or 9x10(3) LD50's of Y. pestis GB. In addition, these preliminary studies also showed that V+IL-12 was partially protective: 4/5 or 3/5 mice survived a challenge with 90 or 9x10(3) LD50's, respectively. In contrast, none of the mice immunised with the Yops survived the challenges, and there was no significant delay in the mean time to death compared to mice receiving a control protein. These results show that using two different vaccine regimens, Yops E, K and N, failed to elicit protective immune responses in a murine model of plague, whereas under the same conditions, V antigen was fully or partially protective.
|
|
