Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)1.

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

From colorectal cancer pattern to the characterization of individuals at risk: Picture for genetic research in Latin America

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common cancers in Latin America and the Caribbean, with the highest rates reported for Uruguay, Brazil and Argentina. We provide a global snapshot of the CRC patterns, how screening is performed, and compared/contrasted to the genetic profile of Lynch syndrome (LS) in the region. From the literature, we find that only nine (20%) of the Latin America and the Caribbean countries have developed guidelines for early detection of CRC, and also with a low adherence. We describe a genetic profile of LS, including a total of 2,685 suspected families, where confirmed LS ranged from 8% in Uruguay and Argentina to 60% in Peru. Among confirmed LS, path_MLH1 variants were most commonly identified in Peru (82%), Mexico (80%), Chile (60%), and path_MSH2/EPCAM variants were most frequently identified in Colombia (80%) and Argentina (47%). Path_MSH6 and path_PMS2 variants were less common, but they showed important presence in Brazil (15%) and Chile (10%), respectively. Important differences exist at identifying LS families in Latin American countries, where the spectrum of path_MLH1 and path_MSH2 variants are those most frequently identified. Our findings have an impact on the evaluation of the patients and their relatives at risk for LS, derived from the gene affected. Although the awareness of hereditary cancer and genetic testing has improved in the last decade, it is remains deficient, with 39%–80% of the families not being identified for LS among those who actually met both the clinical criteria for LS and showed MMR deficiency

Identifying molecular targets for reverse aging using integrated network analysis of transcriptomic and epigenomic changes during aging

Aging is associated with widespread physiological changes, including skeletal muscle weakening, neuron system degeneration, hair loss, and skin wrinkling. Previous studies have identified numerous molecular biomarkers involved in these changes, but their regulatory mechanisms and functional repercussions remain elusive. In this study, we conducted next-generation sequencing of DNA methylation and RNA sequencing of blood samples from 51 healthy adults between 20 and 74 years of age and identified aging-related epigenetic and transcriptomic biomarkers. We also identified candidate molecular targets that can reversely regulate the transcriptomic biomarkers of aging by reconstructing a gene regulatory network model and performing signal flow analysis. For validation, we screened public experimental data including gene expression profiles in response to thousands of chemical perturbagens. Despite insufficient data on the binding targets of perturbagens and their modes of action, curcumin, which reversely regulated the biomarkers in the experimental dataset, was found to bind and inhibit JUN, which was identified as a candidate target via signal flow analysis. Collectively, our results demonstrate the utility of a network model for integrative analysis of omics data, which can help elucidate inter-omics regulatory mechanisms and develop therapeutic strategies against aging

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)

International audienceIn 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

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