Lack of pairing during meiosis triggers multigenerational transgene silencing in Caenorhabditis elegans

Transgenes can be permanently silenced in a single generation via a previously described small RNA-induced epigenetic silencing (RNAe) mechanism, which is promoted by the presence of a perfect Piwi-interacting RNA (piRNA) target site. In this study, we identify a previously unidentified mechanism capable of silencing single-copy transgenes that lack perfect piRNA target sites and that is triggered by a lack of chromosomal pairing during meiosis for multiple generations. Multigenerational RNAe can lead to reversible or permanent transgene silencing and may provide insight into variability in the expression of single-copy transgenes or single-copy genomic insertions, which are commonly used in experimental biology. Our analysis of “multigenerational RNAe” also offers new insights into potentially common epigenetic silencing events relevant to genome expression in the germline and embryo

Lack of pairing during meiosis triggers multigenerational transgene silencing in Caenorhabditis elegans

Single-copy transgenes in Caenorhabditis elegans can be subjected to a potent, irreversible silencing process termed small RNA-induced epigenetic silencing (RNAe). RNAe is promoted by the Piwi Argonaute protein PRG-1 and associated Piwi-interacting RNAs (piRNAs), as well as by proteins that promote and respond to secondary small interfering RNA (siRNA) production. Here we define a related siRNA-mediated silencing process, termed “multigenerational RNAe,” which can occur for transgenes that are maintained in a hemizygous state for several generations. We found that transgenes that contain either GFP or mCherry epitope tags can be silenced via multigenerational RNAe, whereas a transgene that possesses GFP and a perfect piRNA target site can be rapidly and permanently silenced via RNAe. Although previous studies have shown that PRG-1 is typically dispensable for maintenance of RNAe, we found that both initiation and maintenance of multigenerational RNAe requires PRG-1 and the secondary siRNA biogenesis protein RDE-2. Although silencing via RNAe is irreversible, we found that transgene expression can be restored when hemizygous transgenes that were silenced via multigenerational RNAe become homozygous. Furthermore, multigenerational RNAe was accelerated when meiotic pairing of the chromosome possessing the transgene was abolished. We propose that persistent lack of pairing during meiosis elicits a reversible multigenerational silencing response, which can lead to permanent transgene silencing. Multigenerational RNAe may be broadly relevant to single-copy transgenes used in experimental biology and to shaping the epigenomic landscape of diverse species, where genomic polymorphisms between homologous chromosomes commonly result in unpaired DNA during meiosis

Erratum to: Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition) (Autophagy, 12, 1, 1-222, 10.1080/15548627.2015.1100356

non present

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