Benefits and risks of the hormetic effects of dietary isothiocyanates on cancer prevention

The isothiocyanate (ITC) sulforaphane (SFN) was shown at low levels (1-5 µM) to promote cell proliferation to 120-143% of the controls in a number of human cell lines, whilst at high levels (10-40 µM) it inhibited such cell proliferation. Similar dose responses were observed for cell migration, i.e. SFN at 2.5 µM increased cell migration in bladder cancer T24 cells to 128% whilst high levels inhibited cell migration. This hormetic action was also found in an angiogenesis assay where SFN at 2.5 µM promoted endothelial tube formation (118% of the control), whereas at 10-20 µM it caused significant inhibition. The precise mechanism by which SFN influences promotion of cell growth and migration is not known, but probably involves activation of autophagy since an autophagy inhibitor, 3-methyladenine, abolished the effect of SFN on cell migration. Moreover, low doses of SFN offered a protective effect against free-radical mediated cell death, an effect that was enhanced by co-treatment with selenium. These results suggest that SFN may either prevent or promote tumour cell growth depending on the dose and the nature of the target cells. In normal cells, the promotion of cell growth may be of benefit, but in transformed or cancer cells it may be an undesirable risk factor. In summary, ITCs have a biphasic effect on cell growth and migration. The benefits and risks of ITCs are not only determined by the doses, but are affected by interactions with Se and the measured endpoint

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