Tamoxifen induces cellular stress in the nervous system by inhibiting cholesterol synthesis

Background: Tamoxifen (TAM) is an important cancer therapeutic and an experimental tool for effecting genetic recombination using the inducible Cre-Lox technique. Despite its widespread use in the clinic and laboratory, we know little about its effects on the nervous system. This is of significant concern because TAM, via unknown mechanisms, induces cognitive impairment in humans. A hallmark of cellular stress is induction of Activating Transcription Factor 3 (Atf3), and so to determine whether TAM induces cellular stress in the adult nervous system, we generated a knock-in mouse in which Atf3 promoter activity drives transcription of TAM-dependent Cre recombinase (Cre-ERT2); when crossed with tdtomato reporter mice, Atf3 induction results in robust and permanent genetic labeling of cells in which it is up-regulated even transiently. Results: We found that granular neurons of the olfactory bulb and dentate gyrus, vascular cells and ependymal cells throughout the brain, and peripheral sensory neurons expressed tdtomato in response to TAM treatment. We also show that TAM induced Atf3 up-regulation through inhibition of cholesterol epoxide hydrolase (ChEH): reporter expression was mitigated by delivery in vitamin E-rich wheat germ oil (vitamin E depletes ChEH substrates), and was partially mimicked by a ChEH-specific inhibitor. Conclusions: This work demonstrates that TAM stresses cells of the adult central and peripheral nervous systems and highlights concerns about clinical and experimental use of TAM. We propose TAM administration in vitamin E-rich vehicles such as wheat germ oil as a simple remedy

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

Mol. Pharmacol.

The cholecystokinin (CCK) receptors CCK1R and CCK2R exert important central and peripheral functions by binding the neuropeptide cholecystokinin. Because these receptors are potential therapeutic targets, great interest has been devoted to the identification of efficient ligands that selectively activate or inhibit these receptors. A complete mapping of the CCK binding site in these receptors would help to design new CCK ligands and to optimize their properties. In this view, a molecular model of the CCK2R occupied by CCK was built to identify CCK2R residues that interact with CCK functional groups. No such study has yet been reported for the CCK2R. Docking of CCK in the receptor was performed by taking into account our previous mutagenesis data and by using, as constraint, the direct interaction that we demonstrated between His207 in the CCK2R and Asp8 of CCK (Mol Pharmacol 54:364-371, 1998; J Biol Chem 274:23191-23197, 1999). Two residues that had not been revealed in our previous mutagenesis studies, Tyr189 (Y4.60) and Asn358 (N6.55), were identified in interaction via hydrogen bonds with the C-terminal amide of CCK, a crucial functional group of the peptide. Mutagenesis of Tyr189 (Y4.60) and Asn358 (N6.55) as well as structure-affinity studies with modified CCK analogs validated these interactions and the involvement of both residues in the CCK binding site. These results indicate that the present molecular model is an important tool to identify direct contact points between CCK and the CCK2R and to rapidly progress in mapping of the CCK2R binding site. Moreover, comparison of the present CCK2R.CCK molecular model with that of CCK1R.CCK, which we have previously published and validated, clearly argues that the positioning of CCK in these receptors is different