Identification of Pax6-Dependent Gene Regulatory Networks in the Mouse Lens

Lineage-specific DNA-binding transcription factors regulate development by activating and repressing particular set of genes required for the acquisition of a specific cell type. Pax6 is a paired domain and homeodomain-containing transcription factor essential for development of central nervous, olfactory and visual systems, as well as endocrine pancreas. Haploinsufficiency of Pax6 results in perturbed lens development and homeostasis. Loss-of-function of Pax6 is incompatible with lens lineage formation and results in abnormal telencephalic development. Using DNA microarrays, we have identified 559 genes expressed differentially between 1-day old mouse Pax6 heterozygous and wild type lenses. Of these, 178 (31.8%) were similarly increased and decreased in Pax6 homozygous embryonic telencephalon [Holm PC, Mader MT, Haubst N, Wizenmann A, Sigvardsson M, Götz M (2007) Loss- and gain-of-function analyses reveals targets of Pax6 in the developing mouse telencephalon. Mol Cell Neurosci 34: 99–119]. In contrast, 381 (68.2%) genes were differently regulated between the lens and embryonic telencephalon. Differential expression of nine genes implicated in lens development and homeostasis: Cspg2, Igfbp5, Mab21l2, Nrf2f, Olfm3, Spag5, Spock1, Spon1 and Tgfb2, was confirmed by quantitative RT-PCR, with five of these genes: Cspg2, Mab21l2, Olfm3, Spag5 and Tgfb2, identified as candidate direct Pax6 target genes by quantitative chromatin immunoprecipitation (qChIP). In Mab21l2 and Tgfb2 promoter regions, twelve putative individual Pax6-binding sites were tested by electrophoretic mobility shift assays (EMSAs) with recombinant Pax6 proteins. This led to the identification of two and three sites in the respective Mab21l2 and Tgfb2 promoter regions identified by qChIPs. Collectively, the present studies represent an integrative genome-wide approach to identify downstream networks controlled by Pax6 that control mouse lens and forebrain development

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)1.

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field