Tufted is a gain-of-function allele that promotes ectopic expression of the proneural gene amos in Drosophila

The Tufted1 (Tft 1) dominant mutation promotes the generation of ectopic bristles (macrochaetae) in the dorsal mesothorax of Drosophila. Here we show that Tft 1 corresponds to a gain-of-function allele of the proneural gene amos that is associated with a chromosomal aberration at 36F–37A. This causes ectopic expression of amos in large domains of the lateral-dorsal embryonic ectoderm, which results in supernumerary neurons of the PNS, and in the notum region of the third instar imaginal wing, which gives rise to the mesothoracic extra bristles. Revertants of Tft 1, which lack ectopic neurons and bristles, do not show ectopic expression of amos. One revertant is a loss-of-function allele of amos and has a recessive phenotype in the embryonic PNS. Our results suggest that both normal and ectopic Tft 1 bristles are generated following similar rules, and both are subjected to Notch-mediated lateral inhibition. The ability of Tft 1 bristles to appear close together may be due to amos having a stronger proneural capacity than that of other proneural genes like asense and scute. This ability might be related to the wild-type function of amos in promoting development of large clusters of closely spaced olfactory sensilla

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

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