Ultrafast Dynamics of Vibrational Symmetry Breaking in a Charge-ordered Nickelate

The ability to probe symmetry breaking transitions on their natural time scales is one of the key challenges in nonequilibrium physics. Stripe ordering represents an intriguing type of broken symmetry, where complex interactions result in atomic-scale lines of charge and spin density. Although phonon anomalies and periodic distortions attest the importance of electron-phonon coupling in the formation of stripe phases, a direct time-domain view of vibrational symmetry breaking is lacking. We report experiments that track the transient multi-THz response of the model stripe compound La$_{1.75}$Sr$_{0.25}$NiO$_{4}$, yielding novel insight into its electronic and structural dynamics following an ultrafast optical quench. We find that although electronic carriers are immediately delocalized, the crystal symmetry remains initially frozen - as witnessed by time-delayed suppression of zone-folded Ni-O bending modes acting as a fingerprint of lattice symmetry. Longitudinal and transverse vibrations react with different speeds, indicating a strong directionality and an important role of polar interactions. The hidden complexity of electronic and structural coupling during stripe melting and formation, captured here within a single terahertz spectrum, opens new paths to understanding symmetry breaking dynamics in solids.Comment: 21 pages, 4 figures; updated version with journal re

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

Increased AICD generation does not result in increased nuclear translocation or activation of target gene transcription

A sequence of amyloid precursor protein (APP) cleavages culminates in the sequential release of the APP intracellular domain (AICD) and the amyloid beta peptide (Abeta) and/or p3 fragment. One of the environmental factors favouring the accumulation of AICD appears to be a rise in intracellular pH. Here we further identified the metabolism and subcellular localization of artificially expressed constructs under such conditions. We also co-examined the mechanistic lead up to the AICD accumulation and explored possible significances for its increased expression. We found that most of the AICD generated under pH neutralized conditions is likely cleaved from C83. While the AICD surplus was unable to further activate transcription of a luciferase reporter via a Gal4-DNA-binding domain, it failed entirely via the endogenous promoter regions of proposed target genes, APP and KAI1. The lack of a specific transactivation potential was also demonstrated by the unchanged levels of target gene mRNA. However, rather than translocating to the nucleus, the AICD surplus remains membrane tethered or free in the cytosol where it interacts with Fe65. Therefore we provide strong evidence that an increase in AICD generation does not directly promote gene activation of previously proposed target genes.status: publishe

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

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