A single conformational transglutaminase 2 epitope contributed by three domains is critical for celiac antibody binding and effects

The multifunctional, protein cross-linking transglutaminase 2 (TG2) is the main autoantigen in celiac disease, an autoimmune disorder with defined etiology. Glutamine-rich gliadin peptides from ingested cereals, after their deamidation by TG2, induce T-lymphocyte activation accompanied by autoantibody production against TG2 in 1-2% of the population. The pathogenic role and exact binding properties of these antibodies to TG2 are still unclear. Here we show that antibodies from different celiac patients target the same conformational TG2 epitope formed by spatially close amino acids of adjacent domains. Glu153 and 154 on the first alpha-helix of the core domain and Arg19 on first alpha-helix of the N-terminal domain determine the celiac epitope that is accessible both in the closed and open conformation of TG2 and dependent on the relative position of these helices. Met659 on the C-terminal domain also can cooperate in antibody binding. This composite epitope is disease-specific, recognized by antibodies derived from celiac tissues and associated with biological effects when passively transferred from celiac mothers into their newborns. These findings suggest that celiac antibodies are produced in a surface-specific way for which certain homology of the central glutamic acid residues of the TG2 epitope with deamidated gliadin peptides could be a structural basis. Monoclonal mouse antibodies with partially overlapping epitope specificity released celiac antibodies from patient tissues and antagonized their harmful effects in cell culture experiments. Such antibodies or similar specific competitors will be useful in further functional studies and in exploring whether interference with celiac antibody actions leads to therapeutic benefits

A single conformational transglutaminase 2 epitope contributed by three domains is critical for celiac antibody binding and effects

The multifunctional, protein cross-linking transglutaminase 2 (TG2) is the main autoantigen in celiac disease, an autoimmune disorder with defined etiology. Glutamine-rich gliadin peptides from ingested cereals, after their deamidation by TG2, induce T-lymphocyte activation accompanied by autoantibody production against TG2 in 1-2% of the population. The pathogenic role and exact binding properties of these antibodies to TG2 are still unclear. Here we show that antibodies from different celiac patients target the same conformational TG2 epitope formed by spatially close amino acids of adjacent domains. Glu153 and 154 on the first alpha-helix of the core domain and Arg19 on first alpha-helix of the N-terminal domain determine the celiac epitope that is accessible both in the closed and open conformation of TG2 and dependent on the relative position of these helices. Met659 on the C-terminal domain also can cooperate in antibody binding. This composite epitope is disease-specific, recognized by antibodies derived from celiac tissues and associated with biological effects when passively transferred from celiac mothers into their newborns. These findings suggest that celiac antibodies are produced in a surface-specific way for which certain homology of the central glutamic acid residues of the TG2 epitope with deamidated gliadin peptides could be a structural basis. Monoclonal mouse antibodies with partially overlapping epitope specificity released celiac antibodies from patient tissues and antagonized their harmful effects in cell culture experiments. Such antibodies or similar specific competitors will be useful in further functional studies and in exploring whether interference with celiac antibody actions leads to therapeutic benefits

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy in higher eukaryotes

Research in autophagy continues to accelerate,(1) and as a result many new scientists are entering the field. Accordingly, it is important to establish a standard set of criteria for monitoring macroautophagy in different organisms. Recent reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose.(2,3) There are many useful and convenient methods that can be used to monitor macroautophagy in yeast, but relatively few in other model systems, and there is much confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure macroautophagy in higher eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers of autophagosomes versus those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway; thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from fully functional autophagy that includes delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of the methods that can be used by investigators who are attempting to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as by reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that investigate these processes. This set of guidelines is 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 verify an autophagic response

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

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