Quantitative proteomics identifies NCOA4 as the cargo receptor mediating ferritinophagy

Autophagy, the process by which proteins and organelles are sequestered in double-membrane structures called autophagosomes and delivered to lysosomes for degradation, is critical in diseases such as cancer and neurodegeneration1,2. Much of our understanding of this process has emerged from analysis of bulk cytoplasmic autophagy, but our understanding of how specific cargo including organelles, proteins, or intracellular pathogens are targeted for selective autophagy is limited3. We employed quantitative proteomics to identify a cohort of novel and known autophagosome-enriched proteins, including cargo receptors. Like known cargo receptors, NCOA4 was highly enriched in autophagosomes, and associated with ATG8 proteins that recruit cargo-receptor complexes into autophagosomes. Unbiased identification of NCOA4-associated proteins revealed ferritin heavy and light chains, components of an iron-filled cage structure that protects cells from reactive iron species4 but is degraded via autophagy to release iron5,6 through an unknown mechanism. We found that delivery of ferritin to lysosomes required NCOA4, and an inability of NCOA4-deficient cells to degrade ferritin leads to decreased bioavailable intracellular iron. This work identifies NCOA4 as a selective cargo receptor for autophagic turnover of ferritin (ferritinophagy) critical for iron homeostasis and provides a resource for further dissection of autophagosomal cargo-receptor connectivity

Targeting quiescent leukemic stem cells using second generation autophagy inhibitors

In chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) treatment induces autophagy that promotes survival and TKI-resistance in leukemic stem cells (LSCs). In clinical studies hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), the only clinically approved autophagy inhibitor, does not consistently inhibit autophagy in cancer patients, so more potent autophagy inhibitors are needed. We generated a murine model of CML in which autophagic flux can be measured in bone marrow-located LSCs. In parallel, we use cell division tracing, phenotyping of primary CML cells, and a robust xenotransplantation model of human CML, to investigate the effect of Lys05, a highly potent lysosomotropic agent, and PIK-III, a selective inhibitor of VPS34, on the survival and function of LSCs. We demonstrate that long-term haematopoietic stem cells (LT-HSCs: Lin−Sca-1+c-kit+CD48−CD150+) isolated from leukemic mice have higher basal autophagy levels compared with non-leukemic LT-HSCs and more mature leukemic cells. Additionally, we present that while HCQ is ineffective, Lys05-mediated autophagy inhibition reduces LSCs quiescence and drives myeloid cell expansion. Furthermore, Lys05 and PIK-III reduced the number of primary CML LSCs and target xenografted LSCs when used in combination with TKI treatment, providing a strong rationale for clinical use of second generation autophagy inhibitors as a novel treatment for CML patients with LSC persistence

Ferritins: furnishing proteins with iron

Ferritins are a superfamily of iron oxidation, storage and mineralization proteins found throughout the animal, plant, and microbial kingdoms. The majority of ferritins consist of 24 subunits that individually fold into 4-α-helix bundles and assemble in a highly symmetric manner to form an approximately spherical protein coat around a central cavity into which an iron-containing mineral can be formed. Channels through the coat at inter-subunit contact points facilitate passage of iron ions to and from the central cavity, and intrasubunit catalytic sites, called ferroxidase centers, drive Fe2+ oxidation and O2 reduction. Though the different members of the superfamily share a common structure, there is often little amino acid sequence identity between them. Even where there is a high degree of sequence identity between two ferritins there can be major differences in how the proteins handle iron. In this review we describe some of the important structural features of ferritins and their mineralized iron cores and examine in detail how three selected ferritins oxidise Fe2+ in order to explore the mechanistic variations that exist amongst ferritins. We suggest that the mechanistic differences reflect differing evolutionary pressures on amino acid sequences, and that these differing pressures are a consequence of different primary functions for different ferritins

Assembly, organization, and function of the COPII coat

A full mechanistic understanding of how secretory cargo proteins are exported from the endoplasmic reticulum for passage through the early secretory pathway is essential for us to comprehend how cells are organized, maintain compartment identity, as well as how they selectively secrete proteins and other macromolecules to the extracellular space. This process depends on the function of a multi-subunit complex, the COPII coat. Here we describe progress towards a full mechanistic understanding of COPII coat function, including the latest findings in this area. Much of our understanding of how COPII functions and is regulated comes from studies of yeast genetics, biochemical reconstitution and single cell microscopy. New developments arising from clinical cases and model organism biology and genetics enable us to gain far greater insight in to the role of membrane traffic in the context of a whole organism as well as during embryogenesis and development. A significant outcome of such a full understanding is to reveal how the machinery and processes of membrane trafficking through the early secretory pathway fail in disease states

A structural explanation for the binding of endocytic dileucine motifs by the AP2 complex.

Most transmembrane proteins are selected as transport-vesicle cargo through the recognition of short, linear amino-acid motifs in their cytoplasmic portions by vesicle coat proteins. For clathrin-coated vesicles, the motifs are recognized by clathrin adaptors. The AP2 adaptor complex (subunits α, β2, μ2 and σ2) recognizes both major endocytic motifs: YxxΦ motifs1 (where Φ can be F, I, L, M or V) and [ED]xxxL[LI] acidic dileucine motifs. Here we describe the binding of AP2 to the endocytic dileucine motif from CD4 (ref. 2). The major recognition events are the two leucine residues binding in hydrophobic pockets on σ2. The hydrophilic residue four residues upstream from the first leucine sits on a positively charged patch made from residues on the σ2 and α subunits. Mutations in key residues inhibit the binding of AP2 to ‘acidic dileucine’ motifs displayed in liposomes containing phosphatidylinositol-4,5-bisphosphate, but do not affect binding to YxxΦ motifs through μ2. In the ‘inactive’ AP2 core structure3 both motif-binding sites are blocked by different parts of the β2 subunit. To allow a dileucine motif to bind, the β2 amino terminus is displaced and becomes disordered; however, in this structure the YxxΦ-binding site on μ2 remains blocked.D.J.O., B.T.K. and S.E.M. are funded by a Wellcome Trust Senior Research Fellowship to D.J.O. S.H. and K.S. are supported by grants from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (SFB635 and SFB670)

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

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