Glutathione S-transferase mu 1 (GSTM1) and theta 1 (GSTT1) genetic polymorphisms and atopic asthma in children from Southeastern Brazil

Xenobiotics can trigger degranulation of eosinophils and mast cells. In this process, the cells release several substances leading to bronchial hyperactivity, the main feature of atopic asthma (AA). GSTM1 and GSTT1 genes encode enzymes involved in the inactivation of these compounds. Both genes are polymorphic in humans and have a null variant genotype in which both the gene and corresponding enzyme are absent. An increased risk for disease in individuals with the null GST genotypes is therefore, but this issue is controversial. The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of the GSTM1 and GSTT1 genotypes on the occurrence of AA, as well as on its clinical manifestations. Genomic DNA from 86 patients and 258 controls was analyzed by polymerase chain reaction. The frequency of the GSTM1 null genotype in patients was higher than that found in controls (60.5% versus 40.3%, p = 0.002). In individuals with the GSTM1 null genotype the risk of manifested AA was 2.3-fold higher (95%CI: 1.4-3.7) than for others. In contrast, similar frequencies of GSTT1 null and combined GSTM1 plus GSTT1 null genotypes were seen in both groups. No differences in genotype frequencies were perceived in patients stratified by age, gender, ethnic origin, and severity of the disease. These results suggest that the inherited absence of the GSTM1 metabolic pathway may alter the risk of AA in southeastern Brazilian children, although this must be confirmed by further studies with a larger cohort of patients and age-matched controls from the distinct regions of the country

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