Éditeur(s) : HAL CCSD Landes Bioscience
Résumé : International audience
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.
Autophagy

hal-00735751
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00735751
PUBMED : 22966490

Éditeur(s) : HAL CCSD Frontiers Media
Résumé : International audience
To date 142 species have been described in the Vibrionaceae family of bacteria, classified into seven genera; Aliivibrio, Echinimonas, Enterovibrio, Grimontia, Photobacterium, Salinivibrio and Vibrio. As vibrios are widespread in marine environments and show versatile metabolisms and ecologies, these bacteria are recognized as one of the most diverse and important marine heterotrophic bacterial groups for elucidating the correlation between genome evolution and ecological adaptation. However, on the basis of 16S rRNA gene phylogeny, we could not find any robust monophyletic lineages in any of the known genera. We needed further attempts to reconstruct their evolutionary history based on multilocus sequence analysis (MLSA) and/or genome wide taxonomy of all the recognized species groups. In our previous report in 2007, we conducted the first broad multilocus sequence analysis (MLSA) to infer the evolutionary history of vibrios using nine housekeeping genes (the 16S rRNA gene, gapA, gyrB, ftsZ, mreB, pyrH, recA, rpoA, and topA), and we proposed 14 distinct clades in 58 species of Vibrionaceae. Due to the difficulty of designing universal primers that can amplify the genes for MLSA in every Vibrionaceae species, some clades had yet to be defined. In this study, we present a better picture of an updated molecular phylogeny for 86 described vibrio species and 10 genome sequenced Vibrionaceae strains, using 8 housekeeping gene sequences. This new study places special emphasis on (1) eight newly identified clades (Damselae, Mediterranei, Pectenicida, Phosphoreum, Profundum, Porteresiae, Rosenbergii, and Rumoiensis); (2) clades amended since the 2007 proposal with recently described new species; (3) orphan clades of genomospecies F6 and F10; (4) phylogenetic positions defined in 3 genome-sequenced strains (N418, EX25, and EJY3); and (5) description of V. tritonius sp. nov., which is a member of the “Porteresiae” clade.
ISSN: 1664-302X

hal-01546980
http://hal.upmc.fr/hal-01546980
DOI : 10.3389/fmicb.2013.00414