Mammalian EAK-7 activates alternative mTOR signaling to regulate cell proliferation and migration.

Nematode EAK-7 (enhancer-of-akt-1-7) regulates dauer formation and controls life span; however, the function of the human ortholog mammalian EAK-7 (mEAK-7) is unknown. We report that mEAK-7 activates an alternative mechanistic/mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) signaling pathway in human cells, in which mEAK-7 interacts with mTOR at the lysosome to facilitate S6K2 activation and 4E-BP1 repression. Despite interacting with mTOR and mammalian lethal with SEC13 protein 8 (mLST8), mEAK-7 does not interact with other mTOR complex 1 (mTORC1) or mTOR complex 2 (mTORC2) components; however, it is essential for mTOR signaling at the lysosome. This phenomenon is distinguished by S6 and 4E-BP1 activity in response to nutrient stimulation. Conventional S6K1 phosphorylation is uncoupled from S6 phosphorylation in response to mEAK-7 knockdown. mEAK-7 recruits mTOR to the lysosome, a crucial compartment for mTOR activation. Loss of mEAK-7 results in a marked decrease in lysosomal localization of mTOR, whereas overexpression of mEAK-7 results in enhanced lysosomal localization of mTOR. Deletion of the carboxyl terminus of mEAK-7 significantly decreases mTOR interaction. mEAK-7 knockdown decreases cell proliferation and migration, whereas overexpression of mEAK-7 enhances these cellular effects. Constitutively activated S6K rescues mTOR signaling in mEAK-7-knocked down cells. Thus, mEAK-7 activates an alternative mTOR signaling pathway through S6K2 and 4E-BP1 to regulate cell proliferation and migration

mEAK-7 Forms an Alternative mTOR Complex with DNA-PKcs in Human Cancer.

MTOR associated protein, eak-7 homolog (mEAK-7), activates mechanistic target of rapamycin (mTOR) signaling in human cells through an alternative mTOR complex to regulate S6K2 and 4E-BP1. However, the role of mEAK-7 in human cancer has not yet been identified. We demonstrate that mEAK-7 and mTOR signaling are strongly elevated in tumor and metastatic lymph nodes of patients with non-small-cell lung carcinoma compared with those of patients with normal lung or lymph tissue. Cancer stem cells, CD44+/CD90+ cells, yield elevated mEAK-7 and activated mTOR signaling. mEAK-7 is required for clonogenic potential and spheroid formation. mEAK-7 associates with DNA-dependent protein kinase catalytic subunit isoform 1 (DNA-PKcs), and this interaction is increased in response to X-ray irradiation to regulate S6K2 signaling. DNA-PKcs pharmacologic inhibition or genetic knockout reduced S6K2, mEAK-7, and mTOR binding with DNA-PKcs, resulting in loss of S6K2 activity and mTOR signaling. Therefore, mEAK-7 forms an alternative mTOR complex with DNA-PKcs to regulate S6K2 in human cancer cells

mEAK-7 Forms an Alternative mTOR Complex with DNA-PKcs in Human Cancer.

MTOR associated protein, eak-7 homolog (mEAK-7), activates mechanistic target of rapamycin (mTOR) signaling in human cells through an alternative mTOR complex to regulate S6K2 and 4E-BP1. However, the role of mEAK-7 in human cancer has not yet been identified. We demonstrate that mEAK-7 and mTOR signaling are strongly elevated in tumor and metastatic lymph nodes of patients with non-small-cell lung carcinoma compared with those of patients with normal lung or lymph tissue. Cancer stem cells, CD44+/CD90+ cells, yield elevated mEAK-7 and activated mTOR signaling. mEAK-7 is required for clonogenic potential and spheroid formation. mEAK-7 associates with DNA-dependent protein kinase catalytic subunit isoform 1 (DNA-PKcs), and this interaction is increased in response to X-ray irradiation to regulate S6K2 signaling. DNA-PKcs pharmacologic inhibition or genetic knockout reduced S6K2, mEAK-7, and mTOR binding with DNA-PKcs, resulting in loss of S6K2 activity and mTOR signaling. Therefore, mEAK-7 forms an alternative mTOR complex with DNA-PKcs to regulate S6K2 in human cancer cells

MicroRNA-1911-3p targets mEAK-7 to suppress mTOR signaling in human lung cancer cells.

Regulation of mTOR signaling depends on an intricate interplay of post-translational protein modification. Recently, mEAK-7 (mTOR associated protein, eak-7 homolog) was identified as a positive activator of mTOR signaling via an alternative mTOR complex. However, the upstream regulation of mEAK-7 in human cells is not known. Because microRNAs are capable of modulating protein translation of RNA in eukaryotes, we conducted a bioinformatic search for relevant mEAK-7 targeting microRNAs using the Exiqon miRSearch V3.0 algorithm. Based on the score obtained through miRSearch V3.0, the top predicted miRNA (miR-1911-3p) was studied. miR-1911-3p mimics decreased protein levels of both mEAK-7 and mTORC1 downstream effectors p-S6 and p-4E-BP1 in non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) cell lines H1975 and H1299. miR-1911-3p levels and MEAK7 mRNA/mEAK-7/mTOR signaling levels were negatively correlated between normal lung and NSCLC cells. miR-1911-3p directly interacted with MEAK7 mRNA at the 3'-UTR to negatively regulate mEAK-7 and significantly decreased mTOR localization to the lysosome. Furthermore, miR-1911-3p significantly decreased cell proliferation and migration in both H1975 and H1299 cells. Thus, miR-1911-3p functions as a suppressor of mTOR signaling through the regulation of MEAK7 mRNA translation in human cancer cells

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

International audienceIn 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

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

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