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 Oxford University Press (OUP)
Résumé : International audience
DNA sequencing technology is becoming more accessible to a variety of researchers as costs continue to decline. As researchers begin to sequence novel transcriptomes, most of these data sets lack a reference genome and will have to rely on de novo assemblers. Making comparisons across assemblies can be difficult: each program has its strengths and weaknesses, and no tool exists to comparatively evaluate these data sets. We developed software in R, called Sequence Comparative Analysis using Networks (SCAN), to perform statistical comparisons between distinct assemblies. SCAN uses a reference data set to identify the most accurate de novo assembly and the ``good'' transcripts in the user's data. We tested SCAN on three publicly available transcriptomes, each assembled using three assembly programs. Moreover, we sequenced the transcriptome of the oomycete Achlya hypogyna and compared de novo assemblies from Velvet, ABySS, and the CLC Genomics Workbench assembly algorithms. One thousand one hundred twenty-eight of the CLC transcripts were statistically similar to the reference, compared with 49 of the Velvet transcripts and 937 of the ABySS transcripts. SCAN's strength is providing statistical support for transcript assemblies in a biological context. However, SCAN is designed to compare distinct node sets in networks, therefore it can also easily be extended to perform statistical comparisons on any network graph regardless of what the nodes represent.
ISSN: 0737-4038

hal-01544800
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01544800
DOI : 10.1093/molbev/mst087