Lithium Suppresses Astrogliogenesis by Neural Stem and Progenitor Cells by Inhibiting STAT3 Pathway Independently of Glycogen Synthase Kinase 3 Beta

Transplanted neural stem and progenitor cells (NSCs) produce mostly astrocytes in injured spinal cords. Lithium stimulates neurogenesis by inhibiting GSK3b (glycogen synthetase kinase 3-beta) and increasing WNT/beta catenin. Lithium suppresses astrogliogenesis but the mechanisms were unclear. We cultured NSCs from subventricular zone of neonatal rats and showed that lithium reduced NSC production of astrocytes as well as proliferation of glia restricted progenitor (GRP) cells. Lithium strongly inhibited STAT3 (signal transducer and activator of transcription 3) activation, a messenger system known to promote astrogliogenesis and cancer. Lithium abolished STAT3 activation and astrogliogenesis induced by a STAT3 agonist AICAR (5-aminoimidazole-4-carboxamide 1-beta-D-ribofuranoside), suggesting that lithium suppresses astrogliogenesis by inhibiting STAT3. GSK3β inhibition either by a specific GSK3β inhibitor SB216763 or overexpression of GID5-6 (GSK3β Interaction Domain aa380 to 404) did not suppress astrogliogenesis and GRP proliferation. GSK3β inhibition also did not suppress STAT3 activation. Together, these results indicate that lithium inhibits astrogliogenesis through non-GSK3β-mediated inhibition of STAT. Lithium may increase efficacy of NSC transplants by increasing neurogenesis and reducing astrogliogenesis. Our results also may explain the strong safety record of lithium treatment of manic depression. Millions of people take high-dose (>1 gram/day) lithium carbonate for a lifetime. GSK3b inhibition increases WNT/beta catenin, associated with colon and other cancers. STAT3 inhibition may reduce risk for cancer

Segregation of myoblast fusion and muscle-specific gene expression by distinct ligand-dependent inactivation of GSK-3β

Myogenic differentiation involves myoblast fusion and induction of muscle-specific gene expression, which are both stimulated by pharmacological (LiCl), genetic, or IGF-I-mediated GSK-3β inactivation. To assess whether stimulation of myogenic differentiation is common to ligand-mediated GSK-3β inactivation, myoblast fusion and muscle-specific gene expression were investigated in response to Wnt-3a. Moreover, crosstalk between IGF-I/GSK-3β/NFATc3 and Wnt/GSK-3β/β-catenin signaling was assessed. While both Wnt-3a and LiCl promoted myoblast fusion, muscle-specific gene expression was increased by LiCl, but not by Wnt-3a or β-catenin over-expression. Furthermore, LiCl and IGF-I, but not Wnt-3a, increased NFATc3 transcriptional activity. In contrast, β-catenin-dependent transcriptional activity was increased by Wnt-3a and LiCl, but not IGF-I. These results for the first time reveal a segregated regulation of myoblast fusion and muscle-specific gene expression following stimulation of myogenic differentiation in response to distinct ligand-specific signaling routes of GSK-3β inactivation

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