Loss of the Metalloprotease ADAM9 Leads to Cone-Rod Dystrophy in Humans and Retinal Degeneration in Mice

Cone-rod dystrophy (CRD) is an inherited progressive retinal dystrophy affecting the function of cone and rod photoreceptors. By autozygosity mapping, we identified null mutations in the ADAM metallopeptidase domain 9 (ADAM9) gene in four consanguineous families with recessively inherited early-onset CRD. We also found reduced photoreceptor responses in Adam9 knockout mice, previously reported to be asymptomatic. In 12-month-old knockout mice, photoreceptors appear normal, but the apical processes of the retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) cells are disorganized and contact between photoreceptor outer segments (POSs) and the RPE apical surface is compromised. In 20-month-old mice, there is clear evidence of progressive retinal degeneration with disorganized POS and thinning of the outer nuclear layer (ONL) in addition to the anomaly at the POS-RPE junction. RPE basal deposits and macrophages were also apparent in older mice. These findings therefore not only identify ADAM9 as a CRD gene but also identify a form of pathology wherein retinal disease first manifests at the POS-RPE junction

Mutations in LRP5 or FZD4 Underlie the Common Familial Exudative Vitreoretinopathy Locus on Chromosome 11q

Familial exudative vitreoretinopathy (FEVR) is an inherited blinding disorder of the retinal vascular system. Autosomal dominant FEVR is genetically heterogeneous, but its principal locus, EVR1, is on chromosome 11q13-q23. The gene encoding the Wnt receptor frizzled-4 (FZD4) was recently reported to be the EVR1 gene, but our mutation screen revealed fewer patients harboring mutations than expected. Here, we describe mutations in a second gene at the EVR1 locus, low-density-lipoprotein receptor–related protein 5 (LRP5), a Wnt coreceptor. This finding further underlines the significance of Wnt signaling in the vascularization of the eye and highlights the potential dangers of using multiple families to refine genetic intervals in gene-identification studies

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

Erratum to: Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition) (Autophagy, 12, 1, 1-222, 10.1080/15548627.2015.1100356

non present