Cuantificación por inmunomicroscopía electrónica del efecto terapéutico del EGF en úlceras del pie diabético

Introducción: la Inmunomicroscopía electrónica cuantitativa se aplicó recientemente en el estudio de la cuantificación de las distribuciones de determinadas proteínas en diferentes organelos celulares en fibroblastos de Úlceras de pie diabético tratados con el Factor de crecimiento epidérmico en humanos. Objetivo: el presente se enfoca en los resultados relacionados con una molécula clave [el antígeno nuclear de proliferación celular] en la señalización inducida por el Factor de crecimiento epidérmico. Desarrollo: las muestras de Úlceras de pie diabético se analizaron por la inmunomicroscopía electrónica cuantitativa. Las referencias se obtuvieron de la Base de datos Pubmed. En concordancia con una afectación funcional de la señalización mediada por el Factor de crecimiento epidérmico en el tejido de granulación de los individuos diabéticos, se observó poca detección del antígeno nuclear de proliferación celular en los fibroblastos. No obstante, el tratamiento de las Úlceras de pie diabético con el Factor de crecimiento epidérmico indujo una activación temprana del antígeno nuclear de proliferación celular en el núcleo de los fibroblastos de las Úlceras de pie diabético. Se observó, además, un incremento en el inmunomarcaje del antígeno nuclear de proliferación celular en las mitocondrias de los fibroblastos en tiempos tardíos después de la inoculación del Factor de crecimiento epidérmico. Conclusiones: esta investigación demostró la utilidad y el valor de la cuantificación de las distribuciones de inmunomarcaje en organelos celulares para el estudio de las vías de señalización intracelulares de relevancia terapéutica

Osteopontin expression and localization of Ca2+ deposits in early stages of osteoarthritis in a rat model

Calcium deposits have been related to articular cartilage (AC) degeneration and have been observed in late stages of osteoarthritis (OA). However, the role of those deposits, whether they induce the OA pathogenesis or they appear as a consequence of such process, is still unknown. In this work, we present the kinetics of expression and tissue localisation of osteopontin (OPN), a mineralisation biomarker, and calcium deposits in samples from (normal, sham) and osteoarthritic cartilage (in a rat model). Immunohisto-chemical and Western blot assays for OPN, as well as Alizarin red staining for calcium deposits were performed; superficial, middle, and deep zones of AC were analysed. An increased expression of OPN and calcium deposits was found in the osteoarthritic cartilage compared with that of control groups, particularly in the superficial zone of AC in early stages of OA. In addition, the expression and localisation of OPN and calcium deposits during the OA pathogenesis suggest that the pathological AC mineralisation starts in the superficial zone during OA pathogenesis

Cicatrización de heridas cutáneas y papel de los miofibroblastos

Objetivo: realizar una revisión de las características fundamentales de la respuesta de cicatrización de heridas (RCH) cutáneas agudas y crónicas. Materiales y Métodos: la información se obtuvo de la base de datos pubmed y de los trabajos de inves-tigación de los autores. Resultados: la RCH cutáneas se desarrolla en cuatro fases secuenciales: hemostasia, inflamación, proliferación y remodelación. Primero ocurre la activación de fibroblastos, acumulación de un infiltrado celular inflamatorio que incluye a los miofibroblastos y la alteración de la matriz extracelular local (MEC). Después ocurre proliferación de los miofibroblastos, angiogénesis y proliferación de las células epiteliales. Finalmente tiene lugar el cierre de la herida y el restablecimiento de la arquitectura normal. Las heridas crónicas no siguen el patrón normal de reparación y no ocurre la cicatrización. Esto conduce a condiciones patológicas como las úlceras del pie diabético. Los miofibroblastos desempeñan un papel clave y su evolución coincide con los eventos de la RCH. Primero ocurre la trans-diferenciación que involucra la conversión de los fibroblastos en reposo a miofibroblastos que proliferan, son fibrogénicos y contráctiles. Posteriormente ocurre la perpetuación del fenotipo activado que incluye respuestas de fibrogénesis, proliferación, contractibilidad, liberación de citoquinas proinflamatorias, quimotaxis y degradación de la MEC. La resolución involucra la remoción del exceso de MEC y de los miofibroblastos. La eliminación de estos ocurre por tres mecanismos fundamentales: apoptosis, senescencia y reversión al fenotipo de fibroblastos. Esto constituye un paso fundamental en la restitución de la integridad del tejido. Conclusiones: se presentó una revisión actualizada de la RCH fisiológica y patológica

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

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. 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 vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most 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 field 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. 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. 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

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. 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 vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most 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 field 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. 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. 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

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. 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 vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most 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 field 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. 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. 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

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. 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 vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most 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 field 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. 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. 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