Insulin/IGF1 signalling mediates the effects of β2‐adrenergic agonist on muscle proteostasis and growth

Abstract Background Stimulation of β2‐adrenoceptors can promote muscle hypertrophy and fibre type shift, and it can counteract atrophy and weakness. The underlying mechanisms remain elusive. Methods Fed wild type (WT), 2‐day fasted WT, muscle‐specific insulin (INS) receptor (IR) knockout (M‐IR−/−), and MKR mice were studied with regard to acute effects of the β2‐agonist formoterol (FOR) on protein metabolism and signalling events. MKR mice express a dominant negative IGF1 receptor, which blocks both INS/IGF1 signalling. All received one injection of FOR (300 μg kg−1 subcutaneously) or saline. Skeletal muscles and serum samples were analysed from 30 to 240 min. For the study of chronic effects of FOR on muscle plasticity and function as well as intracellular signalling pathways, fed WT and MKR mice were treated with formoterol (300 μg kg−1 day−1) for 30 days. Results In fed and fasted mice, one injection of FOR inhibited autophagosome formation (LC3‐II content, 65%, P ≤ 0.05) that was paralleled by an increase in serum INS levels (4‐fold to 25‐fold, P ≤ 0.05) and the phosphorylation of Akt (4.4‐fold to 6.5‐fold, P ≤ 0.05) and ERK1/2 (50% to two‐fold, P ≤ 0.05). This led to the suppression (40–70%, P ≤ 0.05) of the master regulators of atrophy, FoxOs, and the mRNA levels of their target genes. FOR enhanced (41%, P ≤ 0.05) protein synthesis only in fed condition and stimulated (4.4‐fold to 35‐fold, P ≤ 0.05) the prosynthetic Akt/mTOR/p70S6K pathway in both fed and fasted states. FOR effects on Akt signalling during fasting were blunted in both M‐IR−/− and MKR mice. Inhibition of proteolysis markers by FOR was prevented only in MKR mice. Blockade of PI3K/Akt axis and mTORC1, but not ERK1/2, in fasted mice also suppressed the acute FOR effects on proteolysis and autophagy. Chronic stimulation of β2‐adrenoceptors in fed WT mice increased body (11%, P ≤ 0.05) and muscle (15%, P ≤ 0.05) growth and downregulated atrophy‐related genes (30–40%, P ≤ 0.05), but these effects were abolished in MKR mice. Increases in muscle force caused by FOR (WT, 24%, P ≤ 0.05) were only partially impaired in MKR mice (12%, P ≤ 0.05), and FOR‐induced slow‐to‐fast fibre type shift was not blocked at all in these animals. In MKR mice, FOR also restored the lower levels of muscle SDH activity to basal WT values and caused a marked reduction (57%, P ≤ 0.05) in the number of centrally nucleated fibers. Conclusions NS/IGF1 signalling is necessary for the anti‐proteolytic and hypertrophic effects of in vivo β2‐adrenergic stimulation and appears to mediate FOR‐induced enhancement of protein synthesis. INS/IGF1 signalling only partially contributes to gain in strength and does not mediate fibre type transition induced by FOR

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