9 research outputs found

    Kinetic evidence of a rapid activation of phosphatidylcholine hydrolysis by Ki-ras oncogene. Possible involvement in late steps of the mitogenic cascade.

    Get PDF
    A novel phospholipase C specific for phosphatidylcholine has been shown to be activated by several agonists. Also, recent evidence suggests that transformation mediated by the ras oncogene possibly involves the activation of this novel phospholipid degradative pathway which would account for the increased diacylglycerol levels associated with transformation. Here we use a mutant of Ki-ras which is temperature-sensitive for transformation to investigate the kinetics of activation of the phosphodiesterase-mediated turnover of phosphatidylcholine. Upon shift to the permissive temperature, products of the activated phosphatidylcholine-specific phospholipase C were detected by 30 min and reached maximal levels by 1-2 h. These results suggest that the product of the ras oncogene rapidly activates the phosphodiesteratic hydrolysis of phosphatidylcholine. Furthermore, the fact that at least 4 h are required for serum to activate this phospholipase C strongly suggests that the ras oncogene product might be involved in late steps of the mitogenic signaling cascade.post-print758 K

    Phospholipase C-mediated hydrolysis of phosphatidlycholine is an important step in PDGF-stimulated DNA synthesis.

    No full text
    Recent evidence suggests the involvement of phosphatidylcholine (PC) hydrolysis both in the control of normal cell growth and in transformation. We show here that the simple exogenous addition of Bacillus cereus PC-hydrolyzing phospholipase C (PC-PLC) is sufficient to elicit a potent mitogenic response in Swiss 3T3 fibroblasts by a mechanism that is independent of protein kinase C. Our results on the additivity and synergism between B. cereus PC-PLC, PDGF, and insulin in the mitogenic response indicate that this novel phospholipid degradative pathway may be important in the mitogenic signaling cascade activated by PDGF.post-prin

    Protein kinase C (PKC)ζ-mediated Gα q stimulation of ERK5 protein pathway in cardiomyocytes and cardiac fibroblasts

    No full text
    Gq-coupled G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) mediate the actions of a variety of messengers that are key regulators of cardiovascular function. Enhanced Gα q-mediated signaling plays an important role in cardiac hypertrophy and in the transition to heart failure. We have recently described that Gα q acts as an adaptor protein that facilitates PKCζ-mediated activation of ERK5 in epithelial cells. Because the ERK5 cascade is known to be involved in cardiac hypertrophy, we have investigated the potential relevance of this pathway in cardiovascular Gq-dependent signaling using both cultured cardiac cell types and chronic administration of angiotensin II in mice. We find that PKCζ is required for the activation of the ERK5 pathway by Gq-coupled GPCRin neonatal and adult murine cardiomyocyte cultures and in cardiac fibroblasts. Stimulation of ERK5 by angiotensin II is blocked upon pharmacological inhibition or siRNA-mediated silencing of PKCζ in primary cultures of cardiac cells and in neonatal cardiomyocytes isolated from PKCζ-deficient mice. Moreover, upon chronic challenge with angiotensin II, these mice fail to promote the changes in the ERK5 pathway, in gene expression patterns, and in hypertrophic markers observed in wild-type animals. Taken together, our results show that PKCζ is essential for Gq-dependent ERK5 activation in cardiomyocytes and cardiac fibroblasts and indicate a key cardiac physiological role for the Gα q/PKCζ/ERK5 signaling axis. © 2012 by The American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Inc.This work was supported by grants from the Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación (SAF2008-00552), Fundación Ramón Areces, The Cardiovascular Network (RECAVA) of Instituto de Salud Carlos III (RD06-0014/0037), Comunidad de Madrid (S-SAL-0159-2006 to F. M.), and Instituto de Salud Carlos III (PI080461 to C. R.).Peer Reviewe

    Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

    Get PDF
    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

    Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

    No full text

    Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

    No full text
    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

    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 full text
    non present

    Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

    No full text
    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
    corecore