Bacillus sphaericus Binary Toxin Elicits Host Cell Autophagy as a Response to Intoxication

Bacillus sphaericus strains that produce the binary toxin (Bin) are highly toxic to Culex and Anopheles mosquitoes, and have been used since the late 1980s as a biopesticide for the control of these vectors of infectious disease agents. The Bin toxin produced by these strains targets mosquito larval midgut epithelial cells where it binds to Cpm1 (Culex pipiens maltase 1) a digestive enzyme, and causes severe intracellular damage, including a dramatic cytoplasmic vacuolation. The intoxication of mammalian epithelial MDCK cells engineered to express Cpm1 mimics the cytopathologies observed in mosquito enterocytes following Bin ingestion: pore formation and vacuolation. In this study we demonstrate that Bin-induced vacuolisation is a transient phenomenon that affects autolysosomes. In addition, we show that this vacuolisation is associated with induction of autophagy in intoxicated cells. Furthermore, we report that after internalization, Bin reaches the recycling endosomes but is not localized either within the vacuolating autolysosomes or within any other degradative compartment. Our observations reveal that Bin elicits autophagy as the cell's response to intoxication while protecting itself from degradation through trafficking towards the recycling pathways

Clinical PerspectiveQualitative adolescent health research — focus groups: a rural South African example

This paper introduces nine steps that are recommended in conducting focus group discussions in rural communities and gives an example of how they can appropriately and fruitfully be employed in adolescent health behavioural research. The paper also reviewed issues related to methods of data collection, data analysis, reliability and validity in qualitative research. Focus group discussions took place in classrooms in three schools in Mankweng, Limpopo Province of South Africa. Three groups (boys only, girls only and mixed) took part in each school. Participants were selected from the pool of standard seven (grade 9) students from the chosen schools. The nine steps that were involved in using focus group discussions as a research method and the Mankweng experience is discussed. These steps include: (1) conducting a social influence analysis; (2) identifying the specific information to collect; (3) designing focus group discussion guide; (4) choosing the participants for the focus group discussion; (5) selecting focus group discussion moderators; (6) training focus group discussion moderators; (7) conducting the focus group discussion; (8) analysing the data collected; (9) formulating study conclusions and policy recommendations. Little adolescent health research in South Africa has been based upon methods that can capture the complexity of the role of significant others in adolescent health and development and the powerlessness of rural communities in dealing with the ‘new morbidity\' of adolescent risk behaviours. Understanding what sort of power relations, for example, that are involved in being relatively disadvantaged and how the power of such social groups can be increased is common concern of development managers and other individuals and institutions engaged in policy changes and implementation and deserve to be an essential component of child and adolescent health research.Well-collected and well-analysed qualitative data is needed in order to clearly understand some of the underlying predisposing, enabling and reinforcing factors that could account for adolescent risk behaviours in rural communities. Qualitative research method is important in that they capture the complexity of life, rather than trying to ‘reduce\' this complexity, and the potential for gaining an understanding of what is going on in the situation with the phenomenon is greater. Focus group discussions, a qualitative research methodology, can yield valuable data.Journal of Child and Adolescent Mental Health 2004, 16(2): 117–12

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

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. 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 vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most 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 field 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. 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. 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

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

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. 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 vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most 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 field 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. 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. 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