Acute and delayed sulfur mustard toxicity; novel mechanisms and future studies

Sulfur mustard (SM), also known as mustard gas, has been the most widely used chemical weapon. The toxicity of SM as an incapacitating agent is of much greater importance than its ability to cause lethality. Acute toxicity of SM is related to reactive oxygen and nitrogen species, DNA damage, poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase activation and energy depletion within the affected cell. Therefore melatonin shows beneficial effects against acute SM toxicity in a variety of manner. It scavenges most of the oxygen- and nitrogen-based reactants, inhibits inducible nitric oxide synthase, repairs DNA damage and restores cellular energy depletion. The delayed toxicity of SM however, currently has no mechanistic explanation. We propose that epigenetic aberrations may be responsible for delayed detrimental effects of mustard poisoning. Epigenetic refers to the study of changes that influence the phenotype without causing alteration of the genotype. It involves changes in the properties of a cell that are inherited but do not involve a change in DNA sequence. It is now known that in addition to genetic mutations, epimutations can also involve in the pathogenesis of a variety of human diseases. Several actions of melatonin are now delineated by epigenetic actions including modulation of histone acetylation and DNA methylation. Future studies are warranted to clarify whether epigenetic mechanisms are involved in pathogenesis of delayed sulfur mustard toxicity and melatonin alleviates delayed toxicity of this warfare agent

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