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.

Alternative host model to evaluate Aeromonas virulence

Bacterial virulence can only be assessed by confronting bacteria with a host. Here, we present a new simple assay to evaluate Aeromonas virulence, making use of Dictyostelium amoebae as an alternative host model. This assay can be modulated to assess virulence of very different Aeromonas species.

Cyclic nucleotide specific phosphodiesterases of Leishmania major

Background Leishmania represent a complex of important human pathogens that belong to the systematic order of the kinetoplastida. They are transmitted between their human and mammalian hosts by different bloodsucking sandfly vectors. In their hosts, the Leishmania undergo several differentiation steps, and their coordination and optimization crucially depend on numerous interactions between the parasites and the physiological environment presented by the fly and human hosts. Little is still known about the signalling networks involved in these functions. In an attempt to better understand the role of cyclic nucleotide signalling in Leishmania differentiation and host-parasite interaction, we here present an initial study on the cyclic nucleotide-specific phosphodiesterases of Leishmania major. Results This paper presents the identification of three class I cyclic-nucleotide-specific phosphodiesterases (PDEs) from L. major, PDEs whose catalytic domains exhibit considerable sequence conservation with, among other, all eleven human PDE families. In contrast to other protozoa such as Dictyostelium, or fungi such as Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Candida ssp or Neurospora, no genes for class II PDEs were found in the Leishmania genomes. LmjPDEA contains a class I catalytic domain at the C-terminus of the polypeptide, with no other discernible functional domains elsewhere. LmjPDEB1 and LmjPDEB2 are coded for by closely related, tandemly linked genes on chromosome 15. Both PDEs contain two GAF domains in their N-terminal region, and their almost identical catalytic domains are located at the C-terminus of the polypeptide. LmjPDEA, LmjPDEB1 and LmjPDEB2 were further characterized by functional complementation in a PDE-deficient S. cerevisiae strain. All three enzymes conferred complementation, demonstrating that all three can hydrolyze cAMP. Recombinant LmjPDEB1 and LmjPDEB2 were shown to be cAMP-specific, with Km values in the low micromolar range. Several PDE inhibitors were found to be active against these PDEs in vitro, and to inhibit cell proliferation. Conclusion The genome of L. major contains only PDE genes that are predicted to code for class I PDEs, and none for class II PDEs. This is more similar to what is found in higher eukaryotes than it is to the situation in Dictyostelium or the fungi that concomitantly express class I and class II PDEs. Functional complementation demonstrated that LmjPDEA, LmjPDEB1 and LmjPDEB2 are capable of hydrolyzing cAMP. In vitro studies with recombinant LmjPDEB1 and LmjPDEB2 confirmed this, and they demonstrated that both are completely cAMP-specific. Both enzymes are inhibited by several commercially available PDE inhibitors. The observation that these inhibitors also interfere with cell growth in culture indicates that inhibition of the PDEs is fatal for the cell, suggesting an important role of cAMP signalling for the maintenance of cellular integrity and proliferation.