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

Contrasting views on the role of mesenchymal stromal/stem cells in tumour growth : a systematic review of experimental design

The effect of mesenchymal stromal/stem cells (MSCs) on tumour growth remains controversial. Experimental evidence supports both an inhibitory and a stimulatory effect. We have assessed factors responsible for the contrasting effects of MSCs on tumour growth by doing a meta-analysis of existing literature between 2000 and May 2017. We assessed 183 original research articles comprising 338 experiments. We considered (a) in vivo and in vitro experiments, (b) whether in vivo studies were syngeneic or xenogeneic, and (c) if animals were immune competent or deficient. Furthermore, the sources and types of cancer cells and MSCs were considered together with modes of cancer induction and MSC administration. 56% of all 338 experiments reported that MSCs promote tumour growth. 78% and 79% of all experiments sourced human MSCs and cancer cells, respectively. MSCs were used in their naïve and engineered form in 86% and 14% of experiments, respectively, the latter to produce factors that could alter either their activity or that of the tumour. 53% of all experiments were conducted in vitro with 60% exposing cancer cells to MSCs via coculture. Of all in vivo experiments, 79% were xenogeneic and 63% were conducted in immune-competent animals. Tumour growth was inhibited in 80% of experiments that used umbilical cord-derived MSCs, whereas tumour growth was promoted in 64% and 57% of experiments that used bone marrow- and adipose tissue-derived MSCs, respectively. This contrasting effect of MSCs on tumour growth observed under different experimental conditions may reflect differences in experimental design. This analysis calls for careful consideration of experimental design given the large number of MSC clinical trials currently underway.The South African Medical Research Council in terms of the SAMRC’s Flagship Award Project SAMRC-RFA-UFSP-01-2013/STEM CELLS, the SAMRC Extramural Stem Cell Research and Therapy Unit, the National Research Foundation of South Africa (grant no. 86942), the National Health Laboratory Services Research Trust (grant no. 94453), the University of Pretoria Research Development Programme (A0Z778), the University of Pretoria Vice Chancellor’s Postdoctoral Fellowship and the Institute for Cellular and Molecular Medicine of the University of Pretoria.http://www.springer.comseries/5584hj2019ImmunologyOral Pathology and Oral Biolog

Human mesenchymal stem cells creating an immunosuppressive environment and promote breast cancer in mice

Human mesenchymal stem cells (hMSC) can home to tumor sites and promote tumor growth. The effects of hMSC on tumor growth are controversial and involvement of hMSC in tumor immunology has not been adequately addressed. Therefore, we investigated whether injection of hMSC affects tumor appearance, growth and metastasis, and anti-tumor immunity in an experimental animal model of metastatic breast cancer. Injection of hMSC in BALB/c mice bearing mammary carcinoma promoted tumor growth and metastasis, which was accompanied by lower cytotoxic activity of splenocytes, NK cells and CD8+ T cells in vitro. Tumor-bearing mice that received hMSC had significantly lower percentages of CD3+NKp46+ NKT-like, higher percentages of CD4+Foxp3+ T cells, increased serum levels of Th2 and decreased serum levels of Th1 cytokines, and significantly higher number of CD4+ cells expressing IL-10. These results demonstrate that immunosuppressive environment created by hMSC promoted breast tumor growth and metastasis in mice