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

The effect of molecular weights of microencapsulating polymers on viability of mouse-cloned pancreatic ß-cells: biomaterials, osmotic forces and potential applications in diabetes treatment

Introduction: Ideal cell-containing microcapsules should be capable of maintaining cell viability and exhibit significant structural stability to support cellular functionality. To date, such microcapsules remain unavailable; thus, this study used our well-established microencapsulating methods to examine a total of 32 different microencapsulating formulations and correlate polymers’ molecular weights (Mwt) and UDCA addition, with cell viability and microcapsules’ stability, postmicroencapsulation. Methods: MIN6 mouse-cloned pancreatic ß-cells were microencapsulated using control (n?=?16; without UDCA) and test (n?=?16; with UDCA) different polymers. Confocal microscopic imaging, cell viability, and microcapsules’ stability were assessed. Results: Best cell viability (>50%) was obtained at average Mwt of 50,000?g/mol (poly-l-ornithine), followed by 110,000?g/mol (poly-l-lysine). There was no linear correlation between Mwt and viability. Confocal imagining showed similar microcapsules’ shape and cell distribution among all different polymers’ molecular weights, which suggests that the microencapsulating method was efficient and maintained microcapsules’ uniformity. UDCA addition resulted in enhanced osmotic stability of the microcapsules and improved cell viability, when the formulation contained 1% polylornithine, 1% polyethylene glycol, 20% Eudragit® NM30D, 1% polytetrafluoroethylene, or 5% pentamethylcyclopentasiloxane. Conclusions: UDCA addition improved microenvironmental conditions within the microcapsules but this effect was largely dependent on the polymer systems used

RelA and RelB cross-talk and function in Epstein-Barr virus transformed B cells.

International audience: In this study, we determined the respective roles of RelA and RelB NF-κB subunits in Epstein-Barr virus (EBV)-transformed B cells. Using different EBV-immortalized B-cell models, we showed that only RelA activation increased both survival and cell growth. RelB activity was induced secondarily to RelA activation and repressed RelA DNA binding by trapping the p50 subunit. Reciprocally, RelA activation repressed RelB activity by increasing expression of its inhibitor p100. To search for such reciprocal inhibition at the transcriptional level, we studied gene expression profiles of our RelA and RelB regulatable cellular models. Ten RelA-induced genes and one RelB-regulated gene, ARNTL2, were repressed by RelB and RelA, respectively. Apart from this gene, RelB signature was included in that of RelA Functional groups of RelA-regulated genes were for control of energy metabolism, genetic instability, protection against apoptosis, cell cycle and immune response. Additional functions coregulated by RelA and/or RelB were autophagy and plasma cell differentiation. Altogether, these results demonstrate a cross-inhibition between RelA and RelB and suggest that, in fine, RelB was subordinated to RelA. In the view of future drug development, RelA appeared to be pivotal in both classical and alternative activation pathways, at least in EBV-transformed B cells.Leukemia advance online publication, 15 October 2013; doi:10.1038/leu.2013.274