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

Current status and future perspectives on MRNA drug manufacturing

The coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic launched an unprecedented global effort to rapidly develop vaccines to stem the spread of the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2). Messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) vaccines were developed quickly by companies that were actively developing mRNA therapeutics and vaccines for other indications, leading to two mRNA vaccines being not only the first SARS-CoV-2 vaccines to be approved for emergency use but also the first mRNA drugs to gain emergency use authorization and to eventually gain full approval. This was possible partly because mRNA sequences can be altered to encode nearly any protein without significantly altering its chemical properties, allowing the drug substance to be a modular component of the drug product. Lipid nanoparticle (LNP) technology required to protect the ribonucleic acid (RNA) and mediate delivery into the cytoplasm of cells is likewise modular, as are technologies and infrastructure required to encapsulate the RNA into the LNP. This enabled the rapid adaptation of the technology to a new target. Upon the coattails of the clinical success of mRNA vaccines, this modularity will pave the way for future RNA medicines for cancer, gene therapy, and RNA engineered cell therapies. In this review, trends in the publication records and clinical trial registrations are tallied to show the sharp intensification in preclinical and clinical research for RNA medicines. Demand for the manufacturing of both the RNA drug substance (DS) and the LNP drug product (DP) has already been strained, causing shortages of the vaccine, and the rise in development and translation of other mRNA drugs in the coming years will exacerbate this strain. To estimate demand for DP manufacturing, the dosing requirements for the preclinical and clinical studies of the two approved mRNA vaccines were examined. To understand the current state of mRNA-LNP production, current methods and technologies are reviewed, as are current and announced global capacities for commercial manufacturing. Finally, a vision is rationalized for how emerging technologies such as self-amplifying mRNA, microfluidic production, and trends toward integrated and distributed manufacturing will shape the future of RNA manufacturing and unlock the potential for an RNA medicine revolution

Cellular and molecular oxidative stress-related effects in uterine myometrial and trophoblast-decidual tissues after perigestational alcohol intake up to early mouse organogenesis

The placenta plays a major role in embryo-fetal defects and intrauterine growth retardation after maternal alcohol consumption. Our aims were to determine the oxidative status and cellular and molecular oxidative stress effects on uterine myometrium and trophoblast-decidual tissue following perigestational alcohol intake at early organogenesis. CF-1 female mice were administered with 10% alcohol in drinking water for 17 days prior to and up to day 10 of gestation. Control females received ethanol-free water. Treated mice had smaller implantation sites compared to controls (p < 0.05), diminished maternal vascular lumen, and irregular/discontinuous endothelium of decidual vessels. The trophoblast giant cell layer was disorganized and presented increased abnormal nuclear frequency. The myometrium of treated females had reduced nitrite content, increased superoxide dismutase activity, and reduced glutathione (GSH) content (p < 0.05). However, the trophoblast-decidual tissue of treated females had increased nitrite content (p < 0.05), increased GSH level (p < 0.001), increased thiobarbituric acid-reactive substance concentration (p < 0.001), higher 3-nitrotyrosine immunoreaction, and increased apoptotic index (p < 0.05) compared to controls. In summary, perigestational alcohol ingestion at organogenesis induced oxidative stress in the myometrium and trophoblast-decidual tissue, mainly affecting cells and macromolecules of trophoblast and decidual tissues around early organogenesis, in CF-1 mouse, and suggests that oxidative-induced abnormal early placental formation probably leads to risk of prematurity and fetal growth impairment at term.Fil: Coll, Tamara Anahí. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales; ArgentinaFil: Chaufan, Gabriela. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Ciudad Universitaria. Instituto de Química Biológica de la Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales. Instituto de Química Biológica de la Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales; ArgentinaFil: Pérez Tito, Leticia Gabriela. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales; ArgentinaFil: Ventureira, Martín Ricardo. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Ciudad Universitaria. Instituto de Biodiversidad y Biología Experimental y Aplicada. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales. Instituto de Biodiversidad y Biología Experimental y Aplicada; ArgentinaFil: Rios, Maria del Carmen. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Ciudad Universitaria. Instituto de Química Biológica de la Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales. Instituto de Química Biológica de la Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales; ArgentinaFil: Cebral, Elisa. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Ciudad Universitaria. Instituto de Biodiversidad y Biología Experimental y Aplicada. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales. Instituto de Biodiversidad y Biología Experimental y Aplicada; Argentin