Essential versus accessory aspects of cell death: recommendations of the NCCD 2015

Cells exposed to extreme physicochemical or mechanical stimuli die in an uncontrollable manner, as a result of their immediate structural breakdown. Such an unavoidable variant of cellular demise is generally referred to as ‘accidental cell death’ (ACD). In most settings, however, cell death is initiated by a genetically encoded apparatus, correlating with the fact that its course can be altered by pharmacologic or genetic interventions. ‘Regulated cell death’ (RCD) can occur as part of physiologic programs or can be activated once adaptive responses to perturbations of the extracellular or intracellular microenvironment fail. The biochemical phenomena that accompany RCD may be harnessed to classify it into a few subtypes, which often (but not always) exhibit stereotyped morphologic features. Nonetheless, efficiently inhibiting the processes that are commonly thought to cause RCD, such as the activation of executioner caspases in the course of apoptosis, does not exert true cytoprotective effects in the mammalian system, but simply alters the kinetics of cellular demise as it shifts its morphologic and biochemical correlates. Conversely, bona fide cytoprotection can be achieved by inhibiting the transduction of lethal signals in the early phases of the process, when adaptive responses are still operational. Thus, the mechanisms that truly execute RCD may be less understood, less inhibitable and perhaps more homogeneous than previously thought. Here, the Nomenclature Committee on Cell Death formulates a set of recommendations to help scientists and researchers to discriminate between essential and accessory aspects of cell death

Conserved Expression Patterns Predict microRNA Targets

microRNAs (miRNAs) are major regulators of gene expression and thereby modulate many biological processes. Computational methods have been instrumental in understanding how miRNAs bind to mRNAs to induce their repression but have proven inaccurate. Here we describe a novel method that combines expression data from human and mouse to discover conserved patterns of expression between orthologous miRNAs and mRNA genes. This method allowed us to predict thousands of putative miRNA targets. Using the luciferase reporter assay, we confirmed 4 out of 6 of our predictions. In addition, this method predicted many miRNAs that act as expression enhancers. We show that many miRNA enhancer effects are mediated through the repression of negative transcriptional regulators and that this effect could be as common as the widely reported repression activity of miRNAs. Our findings suggest that the indirect enhancement of gene expression by miRNAs could be an important component of miRNA regulation that has been widely neglected to date

Autophagy Interplay with Apoptosis and Cell Cycle Regulation in the Growth Inhibiting Effect of Resveratrol in Glioma Cells

Prognosis of patients with glioblastoma (GBM) remains very poor, thus making the development of new drugs urgent. Resveratrol (Rsv) is a natural compound that has several beneficial effects such as neuroprotection and cytotoxicity for several GBM cell lines. Here we evaluated the mechanism of action of Rsv on human GBM cell lines, focusing on the role of autophagy and its crosstalk with apoptosis and cell cycle control. We further evaluated the role of autophagy and the effect of Rsv on GBM Cancer Stem Cells (gCSCs), involved in GBM resistance and recurrence. Glioma cells treated with Rsv was tested for autophagy, apoptosis, necrosis, cell cycle and phosphorylation or expression levels of key players of these processes. Rsv induced the formation of autophagosomes in three human GBM cell lines, accompanied by an upregulation of autophagy proteins Atg5, beclin-1 and LC3-II. Inhibition of Rsv-induced autophagy triggered apoptosis, with an increase in Bax and cleavage of caspase-3. While inhibition of apoptosis or autophagy alone did not revert Rsv-induced toxicity, inhibition of both processes blocked this toxicity. Rsv also induced a S-G2/M phase arrest, accompanied by an increase on levels of pCdc2(Y15), cyclin A, E and B, and pRb (S807/811) and a decrease of cyclin D1. Interestingly, this arrest was dependent on the induction of autophagy, since inhibition of Rsv-induced autophagy abolishes cell cycle arrest and returns the phosphorylation of Cdc2(Y15) and Rb(S807/811), and levels of cyclin A, and B to control levels. Finally, inhibition of autophagy or treatment with Rsv decreased the sphere formation and the percentage of CD133 and OCT4-positive cells, markers of gCSCs. In conclusion, the crosstalk among autophagy, cell cycle and apoptosis, together with the biology of gCSCs, has to be considered in tailoring pharmacological interventions aimed to reduce glioma growth using compounds with multiple targets such as Rsv

Steroid Hormone Control of Cell Death and Cell Survival: Molecular Insights Using RNAi

The insect steroid hormone ecdysone triggers programmed cell death of obsolete larval tissues during metamorphosis and provides a model system for understanding steroid hormone control of cell death and cell survival. Previous genome-wide expression studies of Drosophila larval salivary glands resulted in the identification of many genes associated with ecdysone-induced cell death and cell survival, but functional verification was lacking. In this study, we test functionally 460 of these genes using RNA interference in ecdysone-treated Drosophila l(2)mbn cells. Cell viability, cell morphology, cell proliferation, and apoptosis assays confirmed the effects of known genes and additionally resulted in the identification of six new pro-death related genes, including sorting nexin-like gene SH3PX1 and Sox box protein Sox14, and 18 new pro-survival genes. Identified genes were further characterized to determine their ecdysone dependency and potential function in cell death regulation. We found that the pro-survival function of five genes (Ras85D, Cp1, CG13784, CG32016, and CG33087), was dependent on ecdysone signaling. The TUNEL assay revealed an additional two genes (Kap-α3 and Smr) with an ecdysone-dependent cell survival function that was associated with reduced cell death. In vitro, Sox14 RNAi reduced the percentage of TUNEL-positive l(2)mbn cells (p<0.05) following ecdysone treatment, and Sox14 overexpression was sufficient to induce apoptosis. In vivo analyses of Sox14-RNAi animals revealed multiple phenotypes characteristic of aberrant or reduced ecdysone signaling, including defects in larval midgut and salivary gland destruction. These studies identify Sox14 as a positive regulator of ecdysone-mediated cell death and provide new insights into the molecular mechanisms underlying the ecdysone signaling network governing cell death and cell survival

Antagonistic Regulation of Apoptosis and Differentiation by the Cut Transcription Factor Represents a Tumor-Suppressing Mechanism in Drosophila

Apoptosis is essential to prevent oncogenic transformation by triggering self-destruction of harmful cells, including those unable to differentiate. However, the mechanisms linking impaired cell differentiation and apoptosis during development and disease are not well understood. Here we report that the Drosophila transcription factor Cut coordinately controls differentiation and repression of apoptosis via direct regulation of the pro-apoptotic gene reaper. We also demonstrate that this regulatory circuit acts in diverse cell lineages to remove uncommitted precursor cells in status nascendi and thereby interferes with their potential to develop into cancer cells. Consistent with the role of Cut homologues in controlling cell death in vertebrates, we find repression of apoptosis regulators by Cux1 in human cancer cells. Finally, we present evidence that suggests that other lineage-restricted specification factors employ a similar mechanism to put the brakes on the oncogenic process

Phosphorylation of the Drosophila melanogaster RNA–Binding Protein HOW by MAPK/ERK Enhances Its Dimerization and Activity

Drosophila melanogaster Held Out Wings (HOW) is a conserved RNA–binding protein (RBP) belonging to the STAR family, whose closest mammalian ortholog Quaking (QKI) has been implicated in embryonic development and nervous system myelination. The HOW RBP modulates a variety of developmental processes by controlling mRNA levels and the splicing profile of multiple key regulatory genes; however, mechanisms regulating its activity in tissues have yet to be elucidated. Here, we link receptor tyrosine kinase (RTK) signaling to the regulation of QKI subfamily of STAR proteins, by showing that HOW undergoes phosphorylation by MAPK/ERK. Importantly, we show that this modification facilitates HOW dimerization and potentiates its ability to bind RNA and regulate its levels. Employing an antibody that specifically recognizes phosphorylated HOW, we show that HOW is phosphorylated in embryonic muscles and heart cardioblasts in vivo, thus documenting for the first time Serine/Threonine (Ser/Thr) phosphorylation of a STAR protein in the context of an intact organism. We also identify the sallimus/D-titin (sls) gene as a novel muscle target of HOW–mediated negative regulation and further show that this regulation is phosphorylation-dependent, underscoring the physiological relevance of this modification. Importantly, we demonstrate that HOW Thr phosphorylation is reduced following muscle-specific knock down of Drosophila MAPK rolled and that, correspondingly, Sls is elevated in these muscles, similarly to the HOW RNAi effect. Taken together, our results provide a coherent mechanism of differential HOW activation; MAPK/ERK-dependent phosphorylation of HOW promotes the formation of HOW dimers and thus enhances its activity in controlling mRNA levels of key muscle-specific genes. Hence, our findings bridge between MAPK/ERK signaling and RNA regulation in developing muscles

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

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