Antigen and Thapsigargin Promote Influx of Ca2+ in Rat Basophilic RBL-2H3 Cells by Ostensibly Similar Mechanisms That Allow Filling of Inositol 1,4,5-Trisphosphate-Sensitive and Mitochondrial Ca2+ Stores

In single, Fura 2-loaded RBL-2H3 cells, antigen and thapsigargin depleted the same intracellular pool of Ca2+ in the absence of external Ca2+; provision of external Ca2+ induced immediate increases in levels of free Ca2+ ([Ca2+](i)). These increases were dependent on the presence of external Ca2+ and, presumably, on influx of Ca2+ across the cell membrane. Both stimulants enhanced intracellular accumulation of 45Ca2+ through ostensibly similar mechanisms because accumulation was blocked to similar extents by various multivalent cations or by depolarization with K+. Because thapsigargin blocked reuptake of Ca2+ into inositol 1,4,5-trisphosphate sensitive stores, uptake occurred independently of the refilling of these stores. Uptake was dependent instead on sequestration of 45Ca2+ in a pool of high capacity that was insensitive to thapsigargin, caffeine, GTP and inositol 1,4,5-trisphosphate but sensitive to ionomycin and mitochondrial inhibitors. The existence of an inositol 1,4,5-trisphosphate-insensitive pool was also apparent in permeabilized cells; at 0.1 μM [Ca2+](i), uptake of 45Ca2+ was largely confined (\u3e 80%) to the inositol 1,4,5-trisphosphate-sensitive pool, but at 2 μM [Ca2+](i) uptake was largely (\u3e 60%) into the inositol 1,4,5-trisphosphate-insensitive pool. Provision of mitochondrial inhibitors along with thapsigargin to block uptake into both pools, did not impair the thapsigargin-induced increase in [Ca2+](i) or influx of Ca2+, as indicated by changes in Fura 2 fluorescence, but did block the intracellular accumulation of 45Ca2+. The studies illustrate the utility of simultaneous measurements of [Ca2+](i) and 45Ca2+ uptake for a full accounting of Ca2+ homoeostasis as exemplified by the ability to distinguish between influx and mitochondrial uptake of Ca2+

Anti-Allergic Cromones Inhibit Histamine and Eicosanoid Release from Activated Human and Murine Mast Cells by Releasing Annexin A1

PMCID: PMC3601088This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited

Intracellular Bacteria Encode Inhibitory SNARE-Like Proteins

Pathogens use diverse molecular machines to penetrate host cells and manipulate intracellular vesicular trafficking. Viruses employ glycoproteins, functionally and structurally similar to the SNARE proteins, to induce eukaryotic membrane fusion. Intracellular pathogens, on the other hand, need to block fusion of their infectious phagosomes with various endocytic compartments to escape from the degradative pathway. The molecular details concerning the mechanisms underlying this process are lacking. Using both an in vitro liposome fusion assay and a cellular assay, we showed that SNARE-like bacterial proteins block membrane fusion in eukaryotic cells by directly inhibiting SNARE-mediated membrane fusion. More specifically, we showed that IncA and IcmG/DotF, two SNARE-like proteins respectively expressed by Chlamydia and Legionella, inhibit the endocytic SNARE machinery. Furthermore, we identified that the SNARE-like motif present in these bacterial proteins encodes the inhibitory function. This finding suggests that SNARE-like motifs are capable of specifically manipulating membrane fusion in a wide variety of biological environments. Ultimately, this motif may have been selected during evolution because it is an efficient structural motif for modifying eukaryotic membrane fusion and thus contribute to pathogen survival

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