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
Defining homologous genes is important in many evolutionary studies but raises obvious issues. Some of these issues are conceptual and stem from our assumptions of how a gene evolves, others are practical, and depend on the algorithmic decisions implemented in existing software. Therefore, to make progress in the study of homology, both ontological and epistemological questions must be considered. In particular, defining homologous genes cannot be solely addressed under the classic assumptions of strong tree thinking, according to which genes evolve in a strictly tree-like fashion of vertical descent and divergence and the problems of homology detection are primarily methodological. Gene homology could also be considered under a different perspective where genes evolve as ``public goods,'' subjected to various introgressive processes. In this latter case, defining homologous genes becomes a matter of designing models suited to the actual complexity of the data and how such complexity arises, rather than trying to fit genetic data to some a priori tree-like evolutionary model, a practice that inevitably results in the loss of much information. Here we show how important aspects of the problems raised by homology detection methods can be overcome when even more fundamental roots of these problems are addressed by analyzing public goods thinking evolutionary processes through which genes have frequently originated. This kind of thinking acknowledges distinct types of homologs, characterized by distinct patterns, in phylogenetic and nonphylogenetic unrooted or multirooted networks. In addition, we define `` family resemblances'' to include genes that are related through intermediate relatives, thereby placing notions of homology in the broader context of evolutionary relationships. We conclude by presenting some payoffs of adopting such a pluralistic account of homology and family relationship, which expands the scope of evolutionary analyses beyond the traditional, yet relatively narrow focus allowed by a strong tree-thinking view on gene evolution.
ISSN: 0737-4038

hal-01544794
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01544794
DOI : 10.1093/molbev/mst228