A bacterial effector counteracts host autophagy by promoting degradation of an autophagy component

Beyond its role in cellular homeostasis, autophagy plays anti- and promicrobial roles in host-microbe interactions, both in animals and plants. One prominent role of antimicrobial autophagy is to degrade intracellular pathogens or microbial molecules, in a process termed xenophagy. Consequently, microbes evolved mechanisms to hijack or modulate autophagy to escape elimination. Although well-described in animals, the extent to which xenophagy contributes to plant-bacteria interactions remains unknown. Here, we provide evidence that Xanthomonas campestris pv. vesicatoria (Xcv) suppresses host autophagy by utilizing type-III effector XopL. XopL interacts with and degrades the autophagy component SH3P2 via its E3 ligase activity to promote infection. Intriguingly, XopL is targeted for degradation by defense-related selective autophagy mediated by NBR1/Joka2, revealing a complex antagonistic interplay between XopL and the host autophagy machinery. Our results implicate plant antimicrobial autophagy in the depletion of a bacterial virulence factor and unravel an unprecedented pathogen strategy to counteract defense-related autophagy in plant-bacteria interactions

The Interactions Between Rapeseed Lipoxygenase and Native Polyphenolic Compounds in a Model System

The focus of the present research was to study inhibition of lipoxygenase activity by rapeseed native polyphenols and the interactions between those compounds and the enzyme. The enzyme and polyphenolic compounds (polyphenols, phenolic acids) were extracted from rapeseed (Brassica napus) varieties Aviso and PR45DO3. The total phenolic compounds concentration in tested rapeseed was 1,485–1,691 mg/100 g d.m. (dry matter) and the free phenolic acids content in both rapeseed varieties was about 76 μg/100 g d.m. The isolated proteins showed lipoxygenase activity. Prooxidant properties of phenolic compounds in the presence of lipoxygenase and linoleic acid were observed rather in the case of extracts containing a relatively high concentration of miscellaneous polyphenols. Antioxidant properties were recorded in the case of phenolic acid extracts which contain only 1.4–1.9% of phenolics present in raw phenolic extracts. We propose that the prooxidant effect of phenolic compounds comes from quinone and oxidized polyphenols formation. The observed antioxidant activity of phenolic acid extracts is probably due to their ability to scavenge free radicals formed from linoleic acid. However, reduction of lipoxygenase ferric to ferrous ions, which prevent the activation of the enzyme and inhibited its activity, was also observed

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

Adjusted to the Argument : Tracing Paul’s Motives for Modifying the Wording of Scriptural Quotations

Peer reviewe