Evaluation of bone texture imaging parameters on panoramic radiographs of patients with Sheehan’s syndrome: a STROBE-compliant case-control study

Summary Sheehan’s syndrome (SHS) is a rare condition related to the risk of osteoporosis and evaluation of bone texture imaging features on panoramic radiographs would be suitable for this condition, which was the aim of the present study. Fractal dimension, lacunarity, and trabecular morphologic aspects were significantly altered in these patients. Introduction SHS is an important public health problem particularly in developing countries. It is characterized as postpartum hypopituitarism secondary to obstetric complications-related ischemic pituitary necrosis that shows significant systemic metabolic repercussions. Thus, this study aimed to evaluate bone texture parameters in digital panoramic radiographs of patients with SHS. Methods A case-control study was conducted with 30 SHS patients from an Endocrinology and Diabetology Service of reference in Brazil, and 30 age- and sex-matched healthy controls. A custom computer program measured fractal dimension, lacunarity, and some morphologic features in the following mandibular regions of interest (50 × 50 pixels): below the mental foramen (F1), between the first and second molars (M1), and at the center of the mandibular ramus (R1). Results The fractal analysis showed a statistically significant difference between the studied groups in all regions of interest. The fractal dimension in F1 (p = 0.016), M1 (p = 0.043), and R1 (p = 0.028) was significantly lower in SHS group, as well as lacunarity in R1 (p = 0.008). Additionally, several morphologic features were statistically significant in the SHS group (p < 0.05). Conclusion Therefore, individuals with SHS showed altered imaging texture parameters on panoramic radiographs, which reflect a smaller spatial organization of the bone trabeculae and, possibly, a state of reduced mineral bone density

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

SIRT6-dependent cysteine monoubiquitination in the PRE-SET domain of Suv39h1 regulates the NF-κB pathway

Sirtuins are NAD+-dependent deacetylases that facilitate cellular stress response. They include SirT6, which protects genome stability and regulates metabolic homeostasis through gene silencing, and whose loss induces an accelerated aging phenotype directly linked to hyperactivation of the NF-κB pathway. Here we show that SirT6 binds to the H3K9me3-specific histone methyltransferase Suv39h1 and induces monoubiquitination of conserved cysteines in the PRE-SET domain of Suv39h1. Following activation of NF-κB signaling Suv39h1 is released from the IκBα locus, subsequently repressing the NF-κB pathway. We propose that SirT6 attenuates the NF-κB pathway through IκBα upregulation via cysteine monoubiquitination and chromatin eviction of Suv39h1. We suggest a mechanism based on SirT6-mediated enhancement of a negative feedback loop that restricts the NF-κB pathway.This work was supported by the Fundació La Marató de TV3 (20133810 to A.V.), the Spanish Ministry of Economy and competitiveness-MINECO (SAF2011-25860, SAF2014-55964R to A.V.) confunded by FEDER funds/European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)-a way to Build Europe, and the Catalan government agency AGAUR (2009-SGR-914 to A.V.) The IDIBELL Proteomics Unit belongs to ProteoRed, PRB2-ISCIII, and is supported by grant PT13/0001/0033 and Cellex Foundation. S.B.B. is the recipient of a 13FIS037 fellowship

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. © 2012 Landes Bioscience

Erratum to: Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition) (Autophagy, 12, 1, 1-222, 10.1080/15548627.2015.1100356

No abstract available