Insight into the Regulation of Glycan Synthesis in Drosophila Chaoptin Based on Mass Spectrometry

BACKGROUND: A variety of N-glycans attached to protein are known to involve in many important biological functions. Endoplasmic reticulum (ER) and Golgi localized enzymes are responsible to this template-independent glycan synthesis resulting glycoforms at each asparagine residues. The regulation mechanism such glycan synthesis remains largely unknown. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: In order to investigate the relationship between glycan structure and protein conformation, we analyzed a glycoprotein of Drosophila melanogaster, chaoptin (Chp), which is localized in photoreceptor cells and is bound to the cell membrane via a glycosylphosphatidylinositol anchor. Detailed analysis based on mass spectrometry revealed the presence of 13 N-glycosylation sites and the composition of the glycoform at each site. The synthetic pathway of glycans was speculated from the observed glycan structures and the composition at each N-glycosylation site, where the presence of novel routes were suggested. The distribution of glycoforms on a Chp polypeptide suggested that various processing enzymes act on the exterior of Chp in the Golgi apparatus, although virtually no enzyme can gain access to the interior of the horseshoe-shaped scaffold, hence explaining the presence of longer glycans within the interior. Furthermore, analysis of Chp from a mutant (RNAi against dolichyl-phosphate alpha-d-mannosyltransferase), which affects N-glycan synthesis in the ER, revealed that truncated glycan structures were processed. As a result, the distribution of glycoforms was affected for the high-mannose-type glycans only, whereas other types of glycans remained similar to those observed in the control and wild-type. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: These results indicate that glycan processing depends largely on the backbone structure of the parent polypeptide. The information we obtained can be applied to other members of the LRR family of proteins

Identification of Genes Required for Neural-Specific Glycosylation Using Functional Genomics

Glycosylation plays crucial regulatory roles in various biological processes such as development, immunity, and neural functions. For example, α1,3-fucosylation, the addition of a fucose moiety abundant in Drosophila neural cells, is essential for neural development, function, and behavior. However, it remains largely unknown how neural-specific α1,3-fucosylation is regulated. In the present study, we searched for genes involved in the glycosylation of a neural-specific protein using a Drosophila RNAi library. We obtained 109 genes affecting glycosylation that clustered into nine functional groups. Among them, members of the RNA regulation group were enriched by a secondary screen that identified genes specifically regulating α1,3-fucosylation. Further analyses revealed that an RNA–binding protein, second mitotic wave missing (Swm), upregulates expression of the neural-specific glycosyltransferase FucTA and facilitates its mRNA export from the nucleus. This first large-scale genetic screen for glycosylation-related genes has revealed novel regulation of fucTA mRNA in neural cells

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition)

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. For example, 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 versus those that measure fl ux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process including the amount and rate of cargo sequestered and degraded). In particular, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation must be differentiated from stimuli that increase autophagic activity, defi ned as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (inmost 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 fi eld 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. It is worth emphasizing here that lysosomal digestion is a stage of autophagy and evaluating its competence is a crucial part of the evaluation of autophagic flux, or complete autophagy. 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. Along these lines, because of the potential for pleiotropic effects due to blocking autophagy through genetic manipulation it is imperative to delete or knock down more than one autophagy-related gene. In addition, some individual Atg proteins, or groups of proteins, are involved in other cellular pathways so not all Atg proteins can be used as a specific marker for an autophagic process. 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