Physiological and transcriptional analyses of developmental stages along sugarcane leaf

Abstract\ud \ud Background\ud Sugarcane is one of the major crops worldwide. It is cultivated in over 100 countries on 22 million ha. The complex genetic architecture and the lack of a complete genomic sequence in sugarcane hamper the adoption of molecular approaches to study its physiology and to develop new varieties. Investments on the development of new sugarcane varieties have been made to maximize sucrose yield, a trait dependent on photosynthetic capacity. However, detailed studies on sugarcane leaves are scarce. In this work, we report the first molecular and physiological characterization of events taking place along a leaf developmental gradient in sugarcane.\ud \ud \ud Results\ud Photosynthetic response to CO2 indicated divergence in photosynthetic capacity based on PEPcase activity, corroborated by activity quantification (both in vivo and in vitro) and distinct levels of carbon discrimination on different segments along leaf length. Additionally, leaf segments had contrasting amount of chlorophyll, nitrogen and sugars. RNA-Seq data indicated a plethora of biochemical pathways differentially expressed along the leaf. Some transcription factors families were enriched on each segment and their putative functions corroborate with the distinct developmental stages. Several genes with higher expression in the middle segment, the one with the highest photosynthetic rates, were identified and their role in sugarcane productivity is discussed. Interestingly, sugarcane leaf segments had a different transcriptional behavior compared to previously published data from maize.\ud \ud \ud Conclusion\ud This is the first report of leaf developmental analysis in sugarcane. Our data on sugarcane is another source of information for further studies aiming to understand and/or improve C4 photosynthesis. The segments used in this work were distinct in their physiological status allowing deeper molecular analysis. Although limited in some aspects, the comparison to maize indicates that all data acquired on one C4 species cannot always be easily extrapolated to other species. However, our data indicates that some transcriptional factors were segment-specific and the sugarcane leaf undergoes through the process of suberizarion, photosynthesis establishment and senescence.We thank Lucia Daniela Wolf for excellent technical support in HPAEC-PAD analysis. We thank Cristina Rodrigues G. Sales for the support during RubisCO and PEPcase activity assays. We thank Tom Brutnell’s group for kindly providing the read counts and gene lengths used in the analysis of leaf development in maize. RVR is a research fellow of the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq, Brazil). This work was supported by FAPESP as a Regular Research Grant (2012/23345-0)

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