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

Skin Exposure Contributes to Chemical-Induced Asthma: What is the Evidence? A Systematic Review of Animal Models

It is generally assumed that allergic asthma originates primarily through sensitization via the respiratory mucosa, but emerging clinical observations and experimental studies indicate that skin exposure to low molecular weight (LMW) agents, i.e. "chemicals," may lead to systemic sensitization and subsequently develop asthma when the chemical is inhaled. This review aims to evaluate the accumulating experimental evidence that adverse respiratory responses can be elicited upon inhalation of an LMW chemical sensitizer after previous sensitization by dermal exposure. We systematically searched the PubMed and Embase databases up to April 15, 2017, and conducted forward and backward reference tracking. Animal studies involving both skin and airway exposure to LMW agents were included. We extracted 6 indicators of "selective airway hyper-responsiveness" (SAHR)-i.e. respiratory responses that only occurred in previously sensitized animals-and synthesized the evidence level for each indicator into strong, moderate or limited strength. The summarized evidence weight for each chemical agent was graded into high, middle, low or "not possible to assess." We identified 144 relevant animal studies. These studies involved 29 LMW agents, with 107 (74%) studies investigating the occurrence of SAHR. Indicators of SAHR included physiological, cytological/histological and immunological responses in bronchoalveolar lavage, lung tissue and airway-draining lymph nodes. Evidence for skin exposure-induced SAHR was present for 22 agents; for 7 agents the evidence for SAHR was inconclusive, but could not be excluded. The ability of a chemical to cause sensitization via skin exposure should be regarded as constituting a risk of adverse respiratory reactions.status: publishe

Lung exposure to nanoparticles modulates an asthmatic response in a mouse model

The aim of this study was to investigate the modulation of an asthmatic response by titanium dioxide (TiO₂) or gold (Au) nanoparticles (NPs) in a murine model of diisocyanate-induced asthma. On days 1 and 8, BALB/c mice received 0.3% toluene diisocyanate (TDI) or the vehicle acetone-olive oil (AOO) on the dorsum of both ears (20 μL). On day 14, the mice were oropharyngeally dosed with 40 μL of a NP suspension (0.4 mg·mL⁻¹ (∼0.8 mg·kg⁻¹) TiO₂ or Au). 1 day later (day 15), the mice received an oropharyngeal challenge with 0.01% TDI (20 μL). On day 16, airway hyperreactivity (AHR), bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) cell and cytokine analysis, lung histology, and total serum immunoglobulin E were assessed. NP exposure in sensitised mice led to a two- (TiO₂) or three-fold (Au) increase in AHR, and a three- (TiO₂) or five-fold (Au) increase in BAL total cell counts, mainly comprising neutrophils and macrophages. The NPs taken up by BAL macrophages were identified by energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy. Histological analysis revealed increased oedema, epithelial damage and inflammation. In conclusion, these results show that a low, intrapulmonary doses of TiO₂ or Au NPs can aggravate pulmonary inflammation and AHR in a mouse model of diisocyanate-induced asthma.status: publishe