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
Some epidemiological investigations have revealed that frequent consumption of well-done cooked meats and tobacco smoking are risk factors for breast cancer in women. 2-Amino-1-methyl-6-phenylimidazo[4,5-b]pyridine (PhIP) is a heterocyclic aromatic amine that is formed in well-done cooked meat, and 4-aminobiphenyl (4-ABP) is an aromatic amine that arises in tobacco smoke and occurs as a contaminant in the atmosphere. Both compounds are rodent mammary carcinogens, and putative DNA adducts of PhIP and 4-ABP have been frequently detected, by immunohistochemistry (IHC) or (32)P-post-labeling methods, in mammary tissue of USA women. Because of these findings, PhIP and 4-ABP have been implicated as causal agents of human breast cancer. However, the biomarker data are controversial: both IHC and (32)P-post-labeling are non-selective screening methods and fail to provide confirmatory spectral data. Consequently, the identities of the lesions are equivocal. We employed a specific and sensitive liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry (MS) method, to screen tumor-adjacent normal mammary tissue for DNA adducts of PhIP and 4-ABP. Only 1 of 70 biopsy samples obtained from Minneapolis, Minnesota breast cancer patients contained a PhIP-DNA adduct. The level was three adducts per 10(9) nucleotides, a level that is 100-fold lower than the mean level of PhIP adducts reported by IHC or (32)P-post-labeling methods. The occurrence of 4-ABP-DNA adducts was nil in those same breast tissues. Our findings, derived from a specific mass spectrometry method, signify that PhIP and 4-ABP are not major DNA-damaging agents in mammary tissue of USA women and raise questions about the roles of these chemicals in breast cancer.
ISSN: 0143-3334

hal-00682453
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00682453
DOI : 10.1093/carcin/bgr252
PUBMED : 22072616