Conservation of the TRAPPII-specific subunits of a Ypt/Rab exchanger complex

BACKGROUND: Ypt/Rab GTPases and their GEF activators regulate intra-cellular trafficking in all eukaryotic cells. In S. cerivisiae, the modular TRAPP complex acts as a GEF for the Golgi gatekeepers: Ypt1 and the functional pair Ypt31/32. While TRAPPI, which acts in early Golgi, is conserved from fungi to animals, not much is known about TRAPPII, which acts in late Golgi and consists of TRAPPI plus three additional subunits. RESULTS: Here, we show a phylogenetic analysis of the three TRAPPII-specific subunits. One copy of each of the two essential subunits, Trs120 and Trs130, is present in almost every fully sequenced eukaryotic genome. Moreover, the primary, as well as the predicted secondary, structure of the Trs120- and Trs130-related sequences are conserved from fungi to animals. The mammalian orthologs of Trs120 and Trs130, NIBP and TMEM1, respectively, are candidates for human disorders. Currently, NIBP is implicated in signaling, and TMEM1 is suggested to have trans-membrane domains (TMDs) and to function as a membrane channel. However, we show here that the yeast Trs130 does not function as a trans-membrane protein, and the human TMEM1 does not contain putative TMDs. The non-essential subunit, Trs65, is conserved only among many fungi and some unicellular eukaryotes. Multiple alignment analysis of each TRAPPII-specific subunit revealed conserved domains that include highly conserved amino acids. CONCLUSION: We suggest that the function of both NIBP and TMEM1 in the regulation of intra-cellular trafficking is conserved from yeast to man. The conserved domains and amino acids discovered here can be used for functional analysis that should help to resolve the differences in the assigned functions of these proteins in fungi and animals

The P4 promoter of the parvovirus minute virus of mice is developmentally regulated in transgenic P4-LacZ mice

AbstractActivation of the minute virus of mice (MVM) P4 promoter is a key step in the life cycle of the virus and is completely dependent on host transcription factors. Since transcription-factor composition varies widely in different cell types, there is the possibility that only some cell types in the host organism have the capacity to initiate expression from the P4 promoter and therefore that the promoter may be a factor in determining the tropism of MVM. In this study, the ability of various cell types to activate P4, independent of the other virus–host interactions, was examined in transgenic mouse lines bearing a β-galactosidase reporter sequence driven by the P4 promoter. It was found that lacZ was expressed during embryogenesis and in the adult in a cell-type-specific and differentiation-dependent pattern. The data are consistent with cell-type and stage-specific activation of the P4 promoter having a role in determining the host cell-type range of MVM. The ability of some parvoviruses to replicate in, and kill oncogenically transformed cells, and to destroy induced tumors in laboratory animals is the basis of recent approaches to use MVM-based vectors in cancer gene therapy. Since these vectors rely on the activation of the P4 promoter by the target tissues, understanding the promoter dependence on cell-type and differentiation status is important for their design and potential use

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