Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

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.

The transcription factor encyclopedia

Here we present the Transcription Factor Encyclopedia (TFe), a new web-based compendium of mini review articles on transcription factors (TFs) that is founded on the principles of open access and collaboration. Our consortium of over 100 researchers has collectively contributed over 130 mini review articles on pertinent human, mouse and rat TFs. Notable features of the TFe website include a high-quality PDF generator and web API for programmatic data retrieval. TFe aims to rapidly educate scientists about the TFs they encounter through the delivery of succinct summaries written and vetted by experts in the field.

Copper and human health: biochemistry, genetics, and strategies for modeling dose-response relationships

Copper (Cu) and its alloys are used extensively in domestic and industrial applications. Cu is also an essential element in mammalian nutrition. Since both copper deficiency and copper excess produce adverse health effects, the dose-response curve is U-shaped, although the precise form has not yet been well characterized. Many animal and human studies were conducted on copper to provide a rich database from which data suitable for modeling the dose-response relationship for copper may be extracted. Possible dose-response modeling strategies are considered in this review, including those based on the benchmark dose and categorical regression. The usefulness of biologically based dose-response modeling techniques in understanding copper toxicity was difficult to assess at this time since the mechanisms underlying copper-induced toxicity have yet to be fully elucidated. A dose-response modeling strategy for copper toxicity was proposed associated with both deficiency and excess. This modeling strategy was applied to multiple studies of copper-induced toxicity, standardized with respect to severity of adverse health outcomes and selected on the basis of criteria reflecting the quality and relevance of individual studies. The use of a comprehensive database on copper-induced toxicity is essential for dose-response modeling since there is insufficient information in any single study to adequately characterize copper dose-response relationships. The dose-response modeling strategy envisioned here is designed to determine whether the existing toxicity data for copper excess or deficiency may be effectively utilized in defining the limits of the homeostatic range in humans and other species. By considering alternative techniques for determining a point of departure and low-dose extrapolation (including categorical regression, the benchmark dose, and identification of observed no-effect levels) this strategy will identify which techniques are most suitable for this purpose. This analysis also serves to identify areas in which additional data are needed to better define the characteristics of dose-response relationships for copper-induced toxicity in relation to excess or deficiency.

Unilateral focal polymicrogyria in a patient with classical Aarskog-Scott syndrome due to a novel missense mutation in an evolutionary conserved RhoGEF domain of the faciogenital dysplasia gene FGD1

Faciogenital dysplasia or Aarskog-Scott syndrome (AAS) is an X-linked disorder characterized by craniofacial, skeletal, and urogenital malformations and short stature. Mutations in the only known causative gene FGD1 are found in about one-fifth of the cases with the clinical diagnosis of AAS. FGD1 is a guanine nucleotide exchange factor (GEF) that specifically activates the Rho GTPase Cdc42 via its RhoGEF domain. The Cdc42 pathway is involved in skeletal formation and multiple aspects of neuronal development. We describe a boy with typical AAS and, in addition, unilateral focal polymicrogyria (PMG), a feature hitherto unreported in AAS. Sequencing of the FGD1 gene in the index case and his mother revealed the presence of a novel mutation (1396A>G; M466V), located in the evolutionary conserved alpha-helix 4 of the RhoGEF domain. M466V was not found in healthy family members, in >300 healthy controls and AAS patients, and has not been reported in the literature or mutation databases to date, indicating that this novel missense mutation causes AAS, and possibly PMG. Brain cortex malformations such as PMG could be initiated by mutations in the evolutionary conserved RhoGEF domain of FGD1, by perturbing the signaling via Rho GTPases such as Cdc42 known to cause brain malformation.

Non-invasive measurement of steroids in fish-holding water: important considerations when applying the procedure to behaviour studies

Fish behaviourists are increasingly turning to non-invasive measurement of steroid hormones in holding water, as opposed to blood plasma. When some of us met at a workshop in Faro, Portugal, in September, 2007, we realised that there were still many issues concerning the application of this procedure that needed resolution, including: Why do we measure release rates rather than just concentrations of steroids in the water? How does one interpret steroid release rates when dealing with fish of different sizes? What are the merits of measuring conjugated as well as free steroids in water? In the ‘static’ sampling procedure, where fish are placed in a separate container for a short period of time, does this affect steroid release—and, if so, how can it be minimised? After exposing a fish to a behavioural stimulus, when is the optimal time to sample? What is the minimum amount of validation when applying the procedure to a new species? The purpose of this review is to attempt to answer these questions and, in doing so, to emphasize that application of the non-invasive procedure requires more planning and validation than conventional plasma sampling. However, we consider that the rewards justify the extra effort.