Utilizing mitochondrial events as biomarkers for imaging apoptosis

Cells undergoing apoptosis show a plethora of time-dependent changes. The available tools for imaging apoptosis in live cells rely either on the detection of the activity of caspases, or on the visualization of exposure of phosphatidyl serine in the outer leaflet of the cell membrane. We report here a novel method for the detection of mitochondrial events during apoptosis, namely translocation of Bax to mitochondria and release of cytochrome c (Cyt c) using bimolecular fluorescence complementation. Expression of split yellow fluorescent protein (YFP) fragments fused to Bax and Cyt c, resulted in robust induction of YFP fluorescence at the mitochondria of apoptotic cells with very low background. In vivo expression of split YFP protein fragments in liver hepatocytes and intra-vital imaging of subcutaneous tumor showed elevated YFP fluorescence upon apoptosis induction. Thus, YFP complementation could be applied for high-throughput screening and in vivo molecular imaging of mitochondrial events during apoptosis

Mono- or Double-Site Phosphorylation Distinctly Regulates the Proapoptotic Function of Bax

Bax is the major multidomain proapoptotic molecule that is required for apoptosis. It has been reported that phosphorylation of Bax at serine(S) 163 or S184 activates or inactivates its proapoptotic function, respectively. To uncover the mechanism(s) by which phosphorylation regulates the proapoptotic function of Bax, a series of serine (S)→ alanine/glutamate (A/E) Bax mutants, including S163A, S184A, S163E, S184E, S163E/S184A (EA), S163A/S184E (AE), S163A/S184A (AA) and S163E/S184E (EE), were created to abrogate or mimic, respectively, either single or double-site phosphorylation. The compound Bax mutants (i.e. EA and AE) can flesh out the functional contribution of individual phosphorylation site(s). WT and each of these Bax mutants were overexpressed in Bax−/− MEF or lung cancer H157 cells and the proapoptotic activities were compared. Intriguingly, expression of any of Bax mutants containing the mutation S→A at S184 (i.e. S184A, EA or AA) represents more potent proapoptotic activity as compared to WT Bax in association with increased 6A7 epitope conformational change, mitochondrial localization/insertion and prolonged half-life. In contrast, all Bax mutants containing the mutation S→E at S184 (i.e. S184E, AE or EE) have a mobility-shift and fail to insert into mitochondrial membranes with decreased protein stability and less apoptotic activity. Unexpectedly, mutation either S→A or S→E at S163 site does not significantly affect the proapoptotic activity of Bax. These findings indicate that S184 but not S163 is the major phosphorylation site for functional regulation of Bax's activity. Therefore, manipulation of the phosphorylation status of Bax at S184 may represent a novel strategy for cancer treatment

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

Transcriptional Regulation of N-Acetylglutamate Synthase

The urea cycle converts toxic ammonia to urea within the liver of mammals. At least 6 enzymes are required for ureagenesis, which correlates with dietary protein intake. The transcription of urea cycle genes is, at least in part, regulated by glucocorticoid and glucagon hormone signaling pathways. N-acetylglutamate synthase (NAGS) produces a unique cofactor, N-acetylglutamate (NAG), that is essential for the catalytic function of the first and rate-limiting enzyme of ureagenesis, carbamyl phosphate synthetase 1 (CPS1). However, despite the important role of NAGS in ammonia removal, little is known about the mechanisms of its regulation. We identified two regions of high conservation upstream of the translation start of the NAGS gene. Reporter assays confirmed that these regions represent promoter and enhancer and that the enhancer is tissue specific. Within the promoter, we identified multiple transcription start sites that differed between liver and small intestine. Several transcription factor binding motifs were conserved within the promoter and enhancer regions while a TATA-box motif was absent. DNA-protein pull-down assays and chromatin immunoprecipitation confirmed binding of Sp1 and CREB, but not C/EBP in the promoter and HNF-1 and NF-Y, but not SMAD3 or AP-2 in the enhancer. The functional importance of these motifs was demonstrated by decreased transcription of reporter constructs following mutagenesis of each motif. The presented data strongly suggest that Sp1, CREB, HNF-1, and NF-Y, that are known to be responsive to hormones and diet, regulate NAGS transcription. This provides molecular mechanism of regulation of ureagenesis in response to hormonal and dietary changes

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