Éditeur(s) : HAL CCSD American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
Résumé : International audience
Neuroglobins, previously thought to be restricted to vertebrate neurons, were detected in the brain of a photosymbiotic acoel, Symsagittifera roscoffensis, and in neurosensory cells of the jellyfish Clytia hemisphaerica. For the neuroglobin of S. roscoffensis, a member of a lineage that originated either at the base of the bilateria or of the deuterostome clade, we report the ligand binding properties, crystal structure at 2.3 Å, and brain immunocytochemical pattern. We also describe in situ hybridizations of two neuroglobins specifically expressed in differentiating nematocytes (neurosensory cells) and in statocytes (ciliated mechanosensory cells) of C. hemisphaerica, a member of the early branching animal phylum cnidaria. In silico searches using these neuroglobins as queries revealed the presence of previously unidentified neuroglobin-like sequences in most metazoan lineages. Because neural systems are almost ubiquitous in metazoa, the constitutive expression of neuroglobin-like proteins strongly supports the notion of an intimate association of neuroglobins with the evolution of animal neural systems and hints at the preservation of a vitally important function. Neuroglobins were probably recruited in the first protoneurons in early metazoans from globin precursors. Neuroglobins were identified in choanoflagellates, sponges, and placozoans and were conserved during nervous system evolution. Because the origin of neuroglobins predates the other metazoan globins, it is likely that neuroglobin gene duplication followed by co-option and subfunctionalization led to the emergence of globin families in protostomes and deuterostomes (i.e. convergent evolution).
ISSN: 0021-9258

hal-01020584
http://hal.upmc.fr/hal-01020584
http://hal.upmc.fr/hal-01020584/document
http://hal.upmc.fr/hal-01020584/file/Rosko_jbc_revised.pdf
DOI : 10.1074/jbc.M112.407601

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