Simultaneous Inhibition of Ceramide Hydrolysis and Glycosylation Synergizes to Corrupt Mitochondrial Respiration and Signal Caspase Driven Cell Death in Drug-Resistant Acute Myeloid Leukemia

Acute myelogenous leukemia (AML), the most prevalent acute and aggressive leukemia diagnosed in adults, often recurs as a difficult-to-treat, chemotherapy-resistant disease. Because chemotherapy resistance is a major obstacle to successful treatment, novel therapeutic intervention is needed. Upregulated ceramide clearance via accelerated hydrolysis and glycosylation has been shown to be an element in chemotherapy-resistant AML, a problem considering the crucial role ceramide plays in eliciting apoptosis. Herein we employed agents that block ceramide clearance to determine if such a “reset” would be of therapeutic benefit. SACLAC was utilized to limit ceramide hydrolysis, and D-threo-1-phenyl-2-decanoylamino-3-morpholino-1-propanol (D-threo-PDMP) was used to block the glycosylation route. The SACLAC D-threo-PDMP inhibitor combination was synergistically cytotoxic in drug-resistant, P-glycoprotein-expressing (P-gp) AML but not in wt, P-gp-poor cells. Interestingly, P-gp antagonists that can limit ceramide glycosylation via depression of glucosylceramide transit also synergized with SACLAC, suggesting a paradoxical role for P-gp in the implementation of cell death. Mechanistically, cell death was accompanied by a complete drop in ceramide glycosylation, concomitant, striking increases in all molecular species of ceramide, diminished sphingosine 1-phosphate levels, resounding declines in mitochondrial respiratory kinetics, altered Akt, pGSK-3β, and Mcl-1 expression, and caspase activation. Although ceramide was generated in wt cells upon inhibitor exposure, mitochondrial respiration was not corrupted, suggestive of mitochondrial vulnerability in the drug-resistant phenotype, a potential therapeutic avenue. The inhibitor regimen showed efficacy in an in vivo model and in primary AML cells from patients. These results support the implementation of SL enzyme targeting to limit ceramide clearance as a therapeutic strategy in chemotherapy-resistant AML, inclusive of a novel indication for the use of P-gp antagonists

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

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

Temporal distribution of PBAN-like immunoreactivity in the hemolymph of Mamestra brassicae females in relation to sex pheromone production and calling behavior

International audienc