High Distribution of CD40 and TRAF2 in Th40 T Cell Rafts Leads to Preferential Survival of this Auto-Aggressive Population in Autoimmunity

CD40-CD154 interactions have proven critical in autoimmunity, with the identification of CD4(lo)CD40(+) T cells (Th40 cells) as harboring an autoaggressive T cell population shedding new insights into those disease processes. Th40 cells are present at contained levels in non-autoimmune individuals but are significantly expanded in autoimmunity. Th40 cells are necessary and sufficient in transferring type 1 diabetes in mouse models. However, little is known about CD40 signaling in T cells and whether there are differences in that signaling and subsequent outcome depending on disease conditions. When CD40 is engaged, CD40 and TNF-receptor associated factors, TRAFs, become associated with lipid raft microdomains. Dysregulation of T cell homeostasis is emerging as a major contributor to autoimmune disease and thwarted apoptosis is key in breaking homeostasis.Cells were sorted into CD4(hi) and CD4(lo) (Th40 cells) then treated and assayed either as whole or fractionated cell lysates. Protein expression was assayed by western blot and Nf-kappaB DNA-binding activity by electrophoretic mobility shifts. We demonstrate here that autoimmune NOD Th40 cells have drastically exaggerated expression of CD40 on a per-cell-basis compared to non-autoimmune BALB/c. Immediately ex-vivo, untreated Th40 cells from NOD mice have high levels of CD40 and TRAF2 associated with the raft microdomain while Th40 cells from NOR and BALB/c mice do not. CD40 engagement of Th40 cells induces Nf-kappaB DNA-binding activity and anti-apoptotic Bcl-X(L) expression in all three mouse strains. However, only in NOD Th40 cells is anti-apoptotic cFLIP(p43) induced which leads to preferential survival and proliferation. Importantly, CD40 engagement rescues NOD Th40 cells from Fas-induced death.CD40 may act as a switch between life and death promoting signals and NOD Th40 cells are poised for survival via this switch. This may explain how they expand in autoimmunity to thwart T cell homeostasis

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