Serine 25 phosphorylation inhibits RIPK1 kinase-dependent cell death in models of infection and inflammation

RIPK1 regulates cell death and inflammation through kinase-dependent and -independent mechanisms. As a scaffold, RIPK1 inhibits caspase-8-dependent apoptosis and RIPK3/MLKL-dependent necroptosis. As a kinase, RIPK1 paradoxically induces these cell death modalities. The molecular switch between RIPK1 pro-survival and pro-death functions remains poorly understood. We identify phosphorylation of RIPK1 on Ser25 by IKKs as a key mechanism directly inhibiting RIPK1 kinase activity and preventing TNF-mediated RIPK1-dependent cell death. Mimicking Ser25 phosphorylation (S > D mutation) protects cells and mice from the cytotoxic effect of TNF in conditions of IKK inhibition. In line with their roles in IKK activation, TNF-induced Ser25 phosphorylation of RIPK1 is defective in TAK1- or SHARPIN-deficient cells and restoring phosphorylation protects these cells from TNF-induced death. Importantly, mimicking Ser25 phosphorylation compromises the in vivo cell death-dependent immune control of Yersinia infection, a physiological model of TAK1/IKK inhibition, and rescues the cell death-induced multi-organ inflammatory phenotype of the SHARPIN-deficient mice

Molecular mechanisms of cell death: recommendations of the Nomenclature Committee on Cell Death 2018.

Over the past decade, the Nomenclature Committee on Cell Death (NCCD) has formulated guidelines for the definition and interpretation of cell death from morphological, biochemical, and functional perspectives. Since the field continues to expand and novel mechanisms that orchestrate multiple cell death pathways are unveiled, we propose an updated classification of cell death subroutines focusing on mechanistic and essential (as opposed to correlative and dispensable) aspects of the process. As we provide molecularly oriented definitions of terms including intrinsic apoptosis, extrinsic apoptosis, mitochondrial permeability transition (MPT)-driven necrosis, necroptosis, ferroptosis, pyroptosis, parthanatos, entotic cell death, NETotic cell death, lysosome-dependent cell death, autophagy-dependent cell death, immunogenic cell death, cellular senescence, and mitotic catastrophe, we discuss the utility of neologisms that refer to highly specialized instances of these processes. The mission of the NCCD is to provide a widely accepted nomenclature on cell death in support of the continued development of the field

Serine 25 phosphorylation inhibits RIPK1 kinase-dependent cell death in models of infection and inflammation

RIPK1 regulates cell death and inflammation through kinase-dependent and -independent mechanisms. As a scaffold, RIPK1 inhibits caspase-8-dependent apoptosis and RIPK3/MLKL-dependent necroptosis. As a kinase, RIPK1 paradoxically induces these cell death modalities. The molecular switch between RIPK1 pro-survival and pro-death functions remains poorly understood. We identify phosphorylation of RIPK1 on Ser25 by IKKs as a key mechanism directly inhibiting RIPK1 kinase activity and preventing TNF-mediated RIPK1-dependent cell death. Mimicking Ser25 phosphorylation (S > D mutation) protects cells and mice from the cytotoxic effect of TNF in conditions of IKK inhibition. In line with their roles in IKK activation, TNF-induced Ser25 phosphorylation of RIPK1 is defective in TAK1- or SHARPIN-deficient cells and restoring phosphorylation protects these cells from TNF-induced death. Importantly, mimicking Ser25 phosphorylation compromises the in vivo cell death-dependent immune control of Yersinia infection, a physiological model of TAK1/IKK inhibition, and rescues the cell death-induced multi-organ inflammatory phenotype of the SHARPIN-deficient mice

The role of tumor-infiltrating immune cells and chronic inflammation at the tumor site on cancer development, progression, and prognosis: emphasis on non-small cell lung cancer

[EN] In addition to malignant neoplastic cells, cancer tissues also include immune cells, fibroblasts, and endothelial cells, including an abundant collection of growth factors, proangiogenic mediators, cytokines, chemokines, and components of the extracellular matrix. The main physiological function of the immune cells is to monitor tissue homeostasis, to protect against invading pathogens, and to eliminate transformed or damaged cells. Between immune cells and malignant cells in the tumor stroma, there is in fact a complex interaction which has significant prognostic relevance as the immune system has both tumor-promoting and-inhibiting roles. In non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), there is a marked infiltration of different types of immune cells, and the distribution, tissue localization, and cell types are significantly associated with progression and survival. Cancer immunotherapy has seen a significant progress during the last decade. An increased understanding of the mechanisms by which lung cancer cells escape the immune system, and the recognition of the key tumor antigens and immune system components in tumor ignorance have led to the development of several lung cancer vaccines. As the NSCLC prognosis in general is dismal, one may hope that future immunotherapy may be an effective adjunct to standard therapy, reversing immunologic tolerance in the tumor microenvironment. This review reports on the tumor stroma and in particular tumor-suppressing and-promoting roles of the immune system. Furthermore, it presents recent literature on relevant immune cell-related research in NSCLC. Copyright © 2011 by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.Bremnes, RM.; Al-Shibli, K.; Donnem, T.; Sirera Pérez, R.; Al-Saad, S.; Andersen, S.; Stenvold, H.... (2011). The role of tumor-infiltrating immune cells and chronic inflammation at the tumor site on cancer development, progression, and prognosis: emphasis on non-small cell lung cancer. Journal of Thoracic Oncology. 6(4):824-833. doi:10.1097/JTO.0b013e3182037b76S8248336

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

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. 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 vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most 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 field 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. 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. 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

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. 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 vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most 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 field 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. 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. 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