Foamy Macrophages from Tuberculous Patients' Granulomas Constitute a Nutrient-Rich Reservoir for M. tuberculosis Persistence

Tuberculosis (TB) is characterized by a tight interplay between Mycobacterium tuberculosis and host cells within granulomas. These cellular aggregates restrict bacterial spreading, but do not kill all the bacilli, which can persist for years. In-depth investigation of M. tuberculosis interactions with granuloma-specific cell populations are needed to gain insight into mycobacterial persistence, and to better understand the physiopathology of the disease. We have analyzed the formation of foamy macrophages (FMs), a granuloma-specific cell population characterized by its high lipid content, and studied their interaction with the tubercle bacillus. Within our in vitro human granuloma model, M. tuberculosis long chain fatty acids, namely oxygenated mycolic acids (MA), triggered the differentiation of human monocyte-derived macrophages into FMs. In these cells, mycobacteria no longer replicated and switched to a dormant non-replicative state. Electron microscopy observation of M. tuberculosis–infected FMs showed that the mycobacteria-containing phagosomes migrate towards host cell lipid bodies (LB), a process which culminates with the engulfment of the bacillus into the lipid droplets and with the accumulation of lipids within the microbe. Altogether, our results suggest that oxygenated mycolic acids from M. tuberculosis play a crucial role in the differentiation of macrophages into FMs. These cells might constitute a reservoir used by the tubercle bacillus for long-term persistence within its human host, and could provide a relevant model for the screening of new antimicrobials against non-replicating persistent mycobacteria

Beta 1-integrin-c-Met cooperation reveals an inside-in survival signalling on autophagy-related endomembranes

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in the credit line; if the material is not included under the Creative Commons license, users will need to obtain permission from the license holder to reproduce the material. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/R.B.M. was a recipient of a UK Medical Research Council (MRC) studentship, MRC Centenary Award, Barts and The London Charity (472/1711) and Rosetrees Trust (M314), N.K. was a recipient of an MRC studentship (MR/J500409/1), C.J. was a recipient of the Barts and The London Charitable Foundation Scholarship (RAB 05/PJ/07), L.M. was supported by CR-UK, Breast Cancer Now (2008NovPR10) and Rosetrees Trust (M346), A.H. was a recipient of a CR-UK studentship (C236/A11795). P.J.P. was supported by CR-UK. J.I. was supported by grants from the Academy of Finland, ERC Starting grant, Finnish Cancer Organisations and Sigrid Juselius Foundation. S.K. was supported by the MRC (G0501003) and The British Lung Foundation (CAN09-4)

Dynamic pigmentary and structural coloration within cephalopod chromatophore organs

Chromatophores in cephalopod skin are known for fast changes in coloration due to light-scattering pigment granules. Here, authors demonstrate structural coloration facilitated by reflectin in sheath cells and offer insights into the interplay between structural and pigmentary coloration elements

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

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

Molecular mechanisms of cell death: recommendations of the Nomenclature Committee on Cell Death 2018.

Over the past decade, the Nomenclature Committee on Cell Death (NCCD) has formulated guidelines for the definition and interpretation of cell death from morphological, biochemical, and functional perspectives. Since the field continues to expand and novel mechanisms that orchestrate multiple cell death pathways are unveiled, we propose an updated classification of cell death subroutines focusing on mechanistic and essential (as opposed to correlative and dispensable) aspects of the process. As we provide molecularly oriented definitions of terms including intrinsic apoptosis, extrinsic apoptosis, mitochondrial permeability transition (MPT)-driven necrosis, necroptosis, ferroptosis, pyroptosis, parthanatos, entotic cell death, NETotic cell death, lysosome-dependent cell death, autophagy-dependent cell death, immunogenic cell death, cellular senescence, and mitotic catastrophe, we discuss the utility of neologisms that refer to highly specialized instances of these processes. The mission of the NCCD is to provide a widely accepted nomenclature on cell death in support of the continued development of the field