Genomic Dissection of Bipolar Disorder and Schizophrenia, Including 28 Subphenotypes

publisher: Elsevier articletitle: Genomic Dissection of Bipolar Disorder and Schizophrenia, Including 28 Subphenotypes journaltitle: Cell articlelink: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2018.05.046 content_type: article copyright: © 2018 Elsevier Inc

A Library of Phosphoproteomic and Chromatin Signatures for Characterizing Cellular Responses to Drug Perturbations

Although the value of proteomics has been demonstrated, cost and scale are typically prohibitive, and gene expression profiling remains dominant for characterizing cellular responses to perturbations. However, high-throughput sentinel assays provide an opportunity for proteomics to contribute at a meaningful scale. We present a systematic library resource (90 drugs × 6 cell lines) of proteomic signatures that measure changes in the reduced-representation phosphoproteome (P100) and changes in epigenetic marks on histones (GCP). A majority of these drugs elicited reproducible signatures, but notable cell line- and assay-specific differences were observed. Using the “connectivity” framework, we compared signatures across cell types and integrated data across assays, including a transcriptional assay (L1000). Consistent connectivity among cell types revealed cellular responses that transcended lineage, and consistent connectivity among assays revealed unexpected associations between drugs. We further leveraged the resource against public data to formulate hypotheses for treatment of multiple myeloma and acute lymphocytic leukemia. This resource is publicly available at https://clue.io/proteomics. A large compendium of cellular responses to drugs as profiled through proteomic assays of phosphosignaling and histone modifications reveals cellular responses that transcend lineage, discovers unexpected associations between drugs, and recognizes therapeutic hypotheses for treatment of multiple myeloma and acute lymphocytic leukemia. Keywords: mass spectrometry; proteomics; drug discovery; signaling; epigenetics; mechanism of action; LINCS project; GCP; P100; L1000NIH Common Fund's Library of Integrated Network-based Cellular Signatures (LINCS) program (Grant U54HG008097)NIH Common Fund's Library of Integrated Network-based Cellular Signatures (LINCS) program (Grant U54HG008699

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)

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