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.

Human immunodeficiency virus type 1 and influenza virus exit via different membrane microdomains

Directed release of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) into the cleft of the virological synapse that can form between infected and uninfected T cells, for example, in lymph nodes, is thought to contribute to the systemic spread of this virus. In contrast, influenza virus, which causes local infections, is shed into the airways of the respiratory tract from free surfaces of epithelial cells. We now demonstrate that such differential release of HIV-1 and influenza virus is paralleled, at the subcellular level, by viral assembly at different microsegments of the plasma membrane of HeLa cells. HIV-1, but not influenza virus, buds through microdomains containing the tetraspanins CD9 and CD63. Consequently, the anti-CD9 antibody K41, which redistributes its antigen and also other tetraspanins to cell-cell adhesion sites, interferes with HIV-1 but not with influenza virus release. Altogether, these data strongly suggest that the bimodal egress of these two pathogenic viruses, like their entry into target cells, is guided by specific sets of host cell proteins.

Polysomnographic record and successful management of augmentation in restless legs syndrome/Willis-Ekbom disease

BACKGROUND: Dopamine agonists (DAs) represent the first-line treatment in restless legs syndrome (RLS); however, in the long term, a substantial proportion of patients will develop augmentation, which is a severe drug-related exacerbation of symptoms and the main reason for late DA withdrawal. Polysomnographic features and mechanisms underlining augmentation are unknown. No practice guidelines for management of augmentation are available. METHODS: A clinical case series of 24 consecutive outpatients affected by RLS with clinically significant augmentation during treatment with immediate-release DA was performed. All patients underwent a full-night polysomnographic recording during augmentation. A switchover from immediate-release DAs (l-dopa, pramipexole, ropinirole, rotigotine) to the long-acting, extended-release formula of pramipexole was performed. RESULTS: Fifty percent of patients presented more than 15 periodic limb movements per hour of sleep during augmentation, showing longer sleep latency and shorter total sleep time than subjects without periodic limb movements. In all patients, resolution of augmentation was observed within two to four weeks during which immediate-release dopamine agonists could be completely withdrawn. Treatment efficacy of extended-release pramipexole has persisted, thus far, over a mean follow-up interval of 13 months. CONCLUSIONS: Pramipexole extended release could be an easy, safe, and fast pharmacological option to treat augmentation in patients with restless legs syndrome. As such it warrants further prospective and controlled investigations. This observation supports the hypothesis that the duration of action of the drug plays a key role in the mechanism of augmentation.

Cellular and molecular effects of the mTOR inhibitor everolimus.

mTOR (mechanistic target of rapamycin) functions as the central regulator for cell proliferation, growth and survival. Up-regulation of proteins regulating mTOR, as well as its downstream targets, has been reported in various cancers. This has promoted the development of anti-cancer therapies targeting mTOR, namely fungal macrolide rapamycin, a naturally occurring mTOR inhibitor, and its analogues (rapalogues). One such rapalogue, everolimus, has been approved in the clinical treatment of renal and breast cancers. Although results have demonstrated that these mTOR inhibitors are effective in attenuating cell growth of cancer cells under in vitro and in vivo conditions, subsequent sporadic response to rapalogues therapy in clinical trials has promoted researchers to look further into the complex understanding of the dynamics of mTOR regulation in the tumour environment. Limitations of these rapalogues include the sensitivity of tumour subsets to mTOR inhibition. Additionally, it is well known that rapamycin and its rapalogues mediate their effects by inhibiting mTORC (mTOR complex) 1, with limited or no effect on mTORC2 activity. The present review summarizes the pre-clinical, clinical and recent discoveries, with emphasis on the cellular and molecular effects of everolimus in cancer therapy.