Skeletal muscle O-GlcNAc transferase is important for muscle energy homeostasis and whole-body insulin sensitivity

Objective: Given that cellular O-GlcNAcylation levels are thought to be real-time measures of cellular nutrient status and dysregulated O-GlcNAc signaling is associated with insulin resistance, we evaluated the role of O-GlcNAc transferase (OGT), the enzyme that mediates O-GlcNAcylation, in skeletal muscle. Methods: We assessed O-GlcNAcylation levels in skeletal muscle from obese, type 2 diabetic people, and we characterized muscle-specific OGT knockout (mKO) mice in metabolic cages and measured energy expenditure and substrate utilization pattern using indirect calorimetry. Whole body insulin sensitivity was assessed using the hyperinsulinemic euglycemic clamp technique and tissue-specific glucose uptake was subsequently evaluated. Tissues were used for histology, qPCR, Western blot, co-immunoprecipitation, and chromatin immunoprecipitation analyses. Results: We found elevated levels of O-GlcNAc-modified proteins in obese, type 2 diabetic people compared with well-matched obese and lean controls. Muscle-specific OGT knockout mice were lean, and whole body energy expenditure and insulin sensitivity were increased in these mice, consistent with enhanced glucose uptake and elevated glycolytic enzyme activities in skeletal muscle. Moreover, enhanced glucose uptake was also observed in white adipose tissue that was browner than that of WT mice. Interestingly, mKO mice had elevated mRNA levels of Il15 in skeletal muscle and increased circulating IL-15 levels. We found that OGT in muscle mediates transcriptional repression of Il15 by O-GlcNAcylating Enhancer of Zeste Homolog 2 (EZH2). Conclusions: Elevated muscle O-GlcNAc levels paralleled insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes in humans. Moreover, OGT-mediated signaling is necessary for proper skeletal muscle metabolism and whole-body energy homeostasis, and our data highlight O-GlcNAcylation as a potential target for ameliorating metabolic disorders. Keywords: O-GlcNAc signaling, Type 2 diabetes, N-acetyl-d-glucosamine, Tissue cross talk, Epigenetic regulation of Il15 transcription, Insulin sensitivit

Hypermethylation of the GABRE~miR-452~miR-224 promoter in prostate cancer predicts biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy

PURPOSE: Available tools for prostate cancer diagnosis and prognosis are suboptimal and novel biomarkers are urgently needed. Here, we investigated the regulation and biomarker potential of the GABRE∼miR-452∼miR-224 genomic locus. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: GABRE/miR-452/miR-224 transcriptional expression was quantified in 80 nonmalignant and 281 prostate cancer tissue samples. GABRE∼miR-452∼miR-224 promoter methylation was determined by methylation-specific qPCR (MethyLight) in 35 nonmalignant, 293 prostate cancer [radical prostatectomy (RP) cohort 1] and 198 prostate cancer tissue samples (RP cohort 2). Diagnostic/prognostic biomarker potential of GABRE∼miR-452∼miR-224 methylation was evaluated by ROC, Kaplan-Meier, uni- and multivariate Cox regression analyses. Functional roles of miR-224 and miR-452 were investigated in PC3 and DU145 cells by viability, migration, and invasion assays and gene-set enrichment analysis (GSEA) of posttransfection transcriptional profiling data. RESULTS: GABRE∼miR-452∼miR-224 was significantly downregulated in prostate cancer compared with nonmalignant prostate tissue and had highly cancer-specific aberrant promoter hypermethylation (AUC = 0.98). Functional studies and GSEA suggested that miR-224 and miR-452 inhibit proliferation, migration, and invasion of PC3 and DU145 cells by direct/indirect regulation of pathways related to the cell cycle and cellular adhesion and motility. Finally, in uni- and multivariate analyses, high GABRE∼miR-452∼miR-224 promoter methylation was significantly associated with biochemical recurrence in RP cohort 1, which was successfully validated in RP cohort 2. CONCLUSION: The GABRE∼miR-452∼miR-224 locus is downregulated and hypermethylated in prostate cancer and is a new promising epigenetic candidate biomarker for prostate cancer diagnosis and prognosis. Tumor-suppressive functions of the intronic miR-224 and miR-452 were demonstrated in two prostate cancer cell lines, suggesting that epigenetic silencing of GABRE∼miR-452∼miR-224 may be selected for in prostate cancer. Clin Cancer Res; 20(8); 2169-81. ©2014 AACR

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