Autophagy is an important intracellular degradative process that delivers cytoplasmic proteins to lysosome for degradation. Dysfunction of autophagy is implicated in several human diseases, such as neurodegenerative diseases, infectious diseases, and cancers. Autophagy-related proteins are constitutively expressed in the eye. Increasing studies have revealed that abnormal autophagy is an important pathological feature of several ocular diseases. Pharmacological manipulation of autophagy may provide an alternative therapeutic target for some ocular diseases. In this manuscript, we reviewed the relevant progress about the role of autophagy in the pathogenesis of ocular diseases.

/pdf/repertoires-of-autophagy-in-the-pathogenesis-of-ocular-2lklvj9lx2.pdf

Repertoires of Autophagy in the Pathogenesis of Ocular Diseases

Autophagy in the Pathogenesis of Disease

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.

For example, 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 versus those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process including the amount and rate of cargo sequestered and degraded). In particular, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation must be differentiated from stimuli that increase 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. It is worth emphasizing here that lysosomal digestion is a stage of autophagy and evaluating its competence is a crucial part of the evaluation of autophagic flux, or complete autophagy.

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. Along these lines, because of the potential for pleiotropic effects due to blocking autophagy through genetic manipulation, it is imperative to target by gene knockout or RNA interference more than one autophagy-related protein. In addition, some individual Atg proteins, or groups of proteins, are involved in other cellular pathways implying that not all Atg proteins can be used as a specific marker for an autophagic process. 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 assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field.

/pdf/guidelines-for-the-use-and-interpretation-of-assays-for-ijf2t30pbq.pdf

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition)

Over the past decade, the Nomenclature Committee on Cell Death (NCCD) has formulated guidelines for the definition and interpretation of cell death from morphological, biochemical, and functional perspectives. Since the field continues to expand and novel mechanisms that orchestrate multiple cell death pathways are unveiled, we propose an updated classification of cell death subroutines focusing on mechanistic and essential (as opposed to correlative and dispensable) aspects of the process. As we provide molecularly oriented definitions of terms including intrinsic apoptosis, extrinsic apoptosis, mitochondrial permeability transition (MPT)-driven necrosis, necroptosis, ferroptosis, pyroptosis, parthanatos, entotic cell death, NETotic cell death, lysosome-dependent cell death, autophagy-dependent cell death, immunogenic cell death, cellular senescence, and mitotic catastrophe, we discuss the utility of neologisms that refer to highly specialized instances of these processes. The mission of the NCCD is to provide a widely accepted nomenclature on cell death in support of the continued development of the field.

https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/8555786/file/8555788.pdf

Molecular mechanisms of cell death: recommendations of the Nomenclature Committee on Cell Death 2018.

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.

/pdf/guidelines-for-the-use-and-interpretation-of-assays-for-28d1pi1jvo.pdf

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

https://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/S0092-8674(06)00759-8.pdf

DRAM, a p53-Induced Modulator of Autophagy, Is Critical for Apoptosis

https://www.springer.com/cda/content/document/productFlyer/productFlyer_978-3-540-19737-9.pdf?SGWID=0-0-1297-31231474-0

Modern Methods in Analytical Acoustics

It is clear that changes in autophagy and autophagy regulators occur during tumor development and that this can have profound effects in certain tumor settings. The fact that p53, a key tumor suppressor mutated in approximately 50% of human cancers, has now also been shown to induce autophagy, has placed autophagy center stage in the minds of those interested in the development and treatment of malignant disease. p53 is a transcription factor that responds to cellular stress and prevents the propagation of cells which may otherwise form a tumor. The recent discovery, therefore, of DRAM (damage-regulated autophagy modulator) as a new p53 target which modulates autophagy is a major step forward in understanding how p53 controls autophagy and how this relates to tumor suppression. DRAM is a lysosomal protein that is not only critical for the ability of p53 to induce autophagy, but also for p53's ability to induce programmed cell death--a facet of p53 considered central to its tumor-suppressive effects. The fact that DRAM is also inactivated in certain cancers underscores its importance and highlights the possibility that autophagy may have a more profound role in cancer than was first believed.

DRAM links autophagy to p53 and programmed cell death.

The tumor suppressor p53 is a potent inducer of tumor cell death, and strategies exist to exploit p53 for therapeutic gain. However, because about half of human cancers contain mutant p53, application of these strategies is restricted. p53 family members, in particular p73, are in many ways functional paralogs of p53, but are rarely mutated in cancer. Methods for specific activation of p73, however, remain to be elucidated. We describe here a minimal p53-derived apoptotic peptide that induced death in multiple cell types regardless of p53 status. While unable to activate gene expression directly, this peptide retained the capacity to bind iASPP - a common negative regulator of p53 family members. Concordantly, in p53-null cells, this peptide derepressed p73, causing p73-mediated gene activation and death. Moreover, systemic nanoparticle delivery of a transgene expressing this peptide caused tumor regression in vivo via p73. This study therefore heralds what we believe to be the first strategy to directly and selectively activate p73 therapeutically and may lead to the development of broadly applicable agents for the treatment of malignant disease.

/pdf/a-p53-derived-apoptotic-peptide-derepresses-p73-to-cause-3l8651xafs.pdf

A p53-derived apoptotic peptide derepresses p73 to cause tumor regression in vivo.

Splicing DNA-damage responses to tumour cell death

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

Diane Crighton

Author Tools

Chat about Author