Neuroprotective properties of queen bee acid by autophagy induction

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.Versión en línea del registro antes de la inclusión en un número.Online versión of record before inclusión in an issue.Autophagy is a conserved intracellular catabolic pathway that removes cytoplasmic components to contribute to neuronal homeostasis. Accumulating evidence has increasingly shown that the induction of autophagy improves neuronal health and extends longevity in several animal models. Therefore, there is a great interest in the identification of effective autophagy enhancers with potential nutraceutical or pharmaceutical properties to ameliorate age-related diseases, such as neurodegenerative disorders, and/or promote longevity. Queen bee acid (QBA, 10-hydroxy-2-decenoic acid) is the major fatty acid component of, and is found exclusively in, royal jelly, which has beneficial properties for human health. It is reported that QBA has antitumor, anti-inflammatory, and antibacterial activities and promotes neurogenesis and neuronal health; however, the mechanism by which QBA exerts these effects has not been fully elucidated. The present study investigated the role of the autophagic process in the protective effect of QBA. We found that QBA is a novel autophagy inducer that triggers autophagy in various neuronal cell lines and mouse and fly models. The beclin-1 (BECN1) and mTOR pathways participate in the regulation of QBA-induced autophagy. Moreover, our results showed that QBA stimulates sirtuin 1 (SIRT1), which promotes autophagy by the deacetylation of critical ATG proteins. Finally, QBA-mediated autophagy promotes neuroprotection in Parkinson’s disease in vitro and in a mouse model and extends the lifespan of Drosophila melanogaster. This study provides detailed evidences showing that autophagy induction plays a critical role in the beneficial health effects of QBA.Open Access funding provided thanks to the CRUE-CSIC agreement with Springer Nature. This research was supported by a grant (IB18048) from Junta de Extremadura, Spain, and a grant (RTI2018-099259-A-I00) from Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación, Spain. This work was also partially supported by “Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional” (FEDER) from the European Union. Part of the equipment employed in this work has been funded by Generalitat Valeciana and co-financed with ERDF funds (OP EDRF of Comunitat Valenciana 2014-2020). G.M-C is supported by University of Extremadura (ONCE Foundation). M.P-B is a recipient of a fellowship from the “Plan Propio de Iniciación a la Investigación, Desarrollo Tecnológico e Innovación (University of Extremadura).” S.M.S.Y-D is supported by CIBERNED. E.U-C was supported by an FPU predoctoral fellowship FPU16/00684 from Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte. A.B. was supported by a postdoctoral fellowship (APOSTD2017/077). M.S.A. was supported by a predoctoral fellowship (ACIF/2018/071) both from the Conselleria d’Educació, Investigació, Cultura i Esport (Generalitat Valenciana). E.A-C was supported by a grant (IB18048) from Junta de Extremadura, Spain. S.C-C was supported by an FPU predoctoral fellowship FPU19/04435 from Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte. J.M.B-S. P was funded by the “Ramón y Cajal” program (RYC-2018-025099). J.M.F. received research support from the Instituto de Salud Carlos III, CIBERNED (CB06/05/004). M.N-S was funded by the “Ramon y Cajal” Program (RYC-2016-20883) Spain.peerReviewe

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)

International audienceIn 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

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)

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

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)

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