Roles of Major Facilitator Superfamily Transporters in Phosphate Response in Drosophila

The major facilitator superfamily (MFS) transporter Pho84 and the type III transporter Pho89 are responsible for metabolic effects of inorganic phosphate in yeast. While the Pho89 ortholog Pit1 was also shown to be involved in phosphate-activated MAPK in mammalian cells, it is currently unknown, whether orthologs of Pho84 have a role in phosphate-sensing in metazoan species. We show here that the activation of MAPK by phosphate observed in mammals is conserved in Drosophila cells, and used this assay to characterize the roles of putative phosphate transporters. Surprisingly, while we found that RNAi-mediated knockdown of the fly Pho89 ortholog dPit had little effect on the activation of MAPK in Drosophila S2R+ cells by phosphate, two Pho84/SLC17A1–9 MFS orthologs (MFS10 and MFS13) specifically inhibited this response. Further, using a Xenopus oocyte assay, we show that MSF13 mediates uptake of [³³P]-orthophosphate in a sodium-dependent fashion. Consistent with a role in phosphate physiology, MSF13 is expressed highest in the Drosophila crop, midgut, Malpighian tubule, and hindgut. Altogether, our findings provide the first evidence that Pho84 orthologs mediate cellular effects of phosphate in metazoan cells. Finally, while phosphate is essential for Drosophila larval development, loss of MFS13 activity is compatible with viability indicating redundancy at the levels of the transporters.National Institutes of Health (U.S.) (NIDDK 5K08DK078361)Harvard Catalys

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