Green Fluorescent Protein (GFP) Color Reporter Gene Visualizes Parvovirus B19 Non-Structural Segment 1 (NS1) Transfected Endothelial Modification

Background: Human Parvovirus B19 (PVB19) has been associated with myocarditis putative due to endothelial infection. Whether PVB19 infects endothelial cells and causes a modification of endothelial function and inflammation and, thus, disturbance of microcirculation has not been elucidated and could not be visualized so far. Methods and Findings: To examine the PVB19-induced endothelial modification, we used green fluorescent protein (GFP) color reporter gene in the non-structural segment 1 (NS1) of PVB19. NS1-GFP-PVB19 or GFP plasmid as control were transfected in an endothelial-like cell line (ECV304). The endothelial surface expression of intercellular-adhesion molecule-1 (CD54/ICAM-1) and extracellular matrix metalloproteinase inducer (EMMPRIN/CD147) were evaluated by flow cytometry after NS-1-GFP or control-GFP transfection. To evaluate platelet adhesion on NS-1 transfected ECs, we performed a dynamic adhesion assay (flow chamber). NS-1 transfection causes endothelial activation and enhanced expression of ICAM-1 (CD54: mean±standard deviation: NS1-GFP vs. control-GFP: 85.3±11.2 vs. 61.6±8.1; P<0.05) and induces endothelial expression of EMMPRIN/CD147 (CD147: mean±SEM: NS1-GFP vs. control-GFP: 114±15.3 vs. 80±0.91; P<0.05) compared to control-GFP transfected cells. Dynamic adhesion assays showed that adhesion of platelets is significantly enhanced on NS1 transfected ECs when compared to control-GFP (P<0.05). The transfection of ECs was verified simultaneously through flow cytometry, immunofluorescence microscopy and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) analysis. Conclusions: GFP color reporter gene shows transfection of ECs and may help to visualize NS1-PVB19 induced endothelial activation and platelet adhesion as well as an enhanced monocyte adhesion directly, providing in vitro evidence of possible microcirculatory dysfunction in PVB19-induced myocarditis and, thus, myocardial tissue damage

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