| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Fugier, Charlotte, et al.
(författare)
-
Misregulated alternative splicing of BIN1 is associated with T tubule alterations and muscle weakness in myotonic dystrophy
- 2011
-
Ingår i: Nature medicine. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1546-170X .- 1078-8956. ; 17:6, s. 720-725
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Myotonic dystrophy is the most common muscular dystrophy in adults and the first recognized example of an RNA-mediated disease. Congenital myotonic dystrophy (CDM1) and myotonic dystrophy of type 1 (DM1) or of type 2 (DM2) are caused by the expression of mutant RNAs containing expanded CUG or CCUG repeats, respectively. These mutant RNAs sequester the splicing regulator Muscleblind-like-1 (MBNL1), resulting in specific misregulation of the alternative splicing of other pre-mRNAs. We found that alternative splicing of the bridging integrator-1 (BIN1) pre-mRNA is altered in skeletal muscle samples of people with CDM1, DM1 and DM2. BIN1 is involved in tubular invaginations of membranes and is required for the biogenesis of muscle T tubules, which are specialized skeletal muscle membrane structures essential for excitation-contraction coupling. Mutations in the BIN1 gene cause centronuclear myopathy, which shares some histopathological features with myotonic dystrophy. We found that MBNL1 binds the BIN1 pre-mRNA and regulates its alternative splicing. BIN1 missplicing results in expression of an inactive form of BIN1 lacking phosphatidylinositol 5-phosphate-binding and membrane-tubulating activities. Consistent with a defect of BIN1, muscle T tubules are altered in people with myotonic dystrophy, and membrane structures are restored upon expression of the normal splicing form of BIN1 in muscle cells of such individuals. Finally, reproducing BIN1 splicing alteration in mice is sufficient to promote T tubule alterations and muscle weakness, a predominant feature of myotonic dystrophy.
|
|
| 3. |
- 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.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- 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.
|
|
| 6. |
- Toussaint, Anne, et al.
(författare)
-
Defects in amphiphysin 2 (BIN1) and triads in several forms of centronuclear myopathies.
- 2011
-
Ingår i: Acta neuropathologica. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1432-0533 .- 0001-6322. ; 121:2, s. 253-266
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Myotubular myopathy and centronuclear myopathies (CNM) are congenital myopathies characterized by generalized muscle weakness and mislocalization of muscle fiber nuclei. Genetically distinct forms exist, and mutations in BIN1 were recently identified in autosomal recessive cases (ARCNM). Amphiphysins have been implicated in membrane remodeling in brain and skeletal muscle. Our objective was to decipher the pathogenetic mechanisms underlying different forms of CNM, with a focus on ARCNM cases. In this study, we compare the histopathological features from patients with X-linked, autosomal recessive, and dominant forms, respectively, mutated in myotubularin (MTM1), amphiphysin 2 (BIN1), and dynamin 2 (DNM2). We further characterize the ultrastructural defects in ARCNM muscles. We demonstrate that the two BIN1 isoforms expressed in skeletal muscle possess the phosphoinositide-binding domain and are specifically targeted to the triads close to the DHPR-RYR1 complex. Cardiac isoforms do not contain this domain, suggesting that splicing of BIN1 regulates its specific function in skeletal muscle. Immunofluorescence analyses of muscles from patients with BIN1 mutations reveal aberrations of BIN1 localization and triad organization. These defects are also observed in X-linked and autosomal dominant forms of CNM and in Mtm1 knockout mice. In addition to previously reported implications of BIN1 in cancer as a tumor suppressor, these findings sustain an important role for BIN1 skeletal muscle isoforms in membrane remodeling and organization of the excitation-contraction machinery. We propose that aberrant BIN1 localization and defects in triad structure are part of a common pathogenetic mechanism shared between the three forms of centronuclear myopathies.
|
|
