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

MicroRNAs (miRNAs) are small RNAs that function as posttranscriptional regulators of gene expression. miRNAs affect a variety of signaling pathways, and impaired miRNA regulation may contribute to the development of cancer and other diseases. Here we show that miRNA miR-10a interacts with the 5' untranslated region of mRNAs encoding ribosomal proteins to enhance their translation. miR-10a alleviates translational repression of the ribosomal protein mRNAs during amino acid starvation and is required for their translational induction following anisomycin treatment or overexpression of RAS. We show that miR-10a binds immediately downstream of the regulatory 5'TOP motif and that the 5'TOP regulatory complex and miR-10a are functionally interconnected. The results show that miR-10a may positively control global protein synthesis via the stimulation of ribosomal protein mRNA translation and ribosome biogenesis and hereby affect the ability of cells to undergo transformation.

No abstract

A B S T R A C TWith the advent of next generation sequencing techniques a previously unknown world of non-coding RNA molecules have been discovered. Non-coding RNA transcripts likely outnumber the group of protein coding sequences and hold promise of many new discoveries and mechanistic explanations for essential biological phenomena and pathologies. The best characterized non-coding RNA family consists in humans of about 1400 microRNAs for which abundant evidence have demonstrated fundamental importance in normal development, differentiation, growth control and in human diseases such as cancer. In this review, we summarize the current knowledge and concepts concerning the involvement of microRNAs in cancer, which have emerged from the study of cell culture and animal model systems, including the regulation of key cancer-related pathways, such as cell cycle control and the DNA damage response. Importantly, microRNA molecules are already entering the clinic as diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers for patient stratification and also as therapeutic targets and agents.

MicroRNAs (miRNAs) are inhibitors of gene expression capable of controlling processes in normal development and cancer. In mammals, miRNAs use a seed sequence of 6-8 nucleotides (nt) to associate with 3' untranslated regions (3'UTRs) of mRNAs and inhibit their expression. Intriguingly, occasionally not only the miRNA-targeting site but also sequences in its vicinity are highly conserved throughout evolution. We therefore hypothesized that conserved regions in mRNAs may serve as docking platforms for modulators of miRNA activity. Here we demonstrate that the expression of dead end 1 (Dnd1), an evolutionary conserved RNA-binding protein (RBP), counteracts the function of several miRNAs in human cells and in primordial germ cells of zebrafish by binding mRNAs and prohibiting miRNAs from associating with their target sites. These effects of Dnd1 are mediated through uridine-rich regions present in the miRNA-targeted mRNAs. Thus, our data unravel a novel role of Dnd1 in protecting certain mRNAs from miRNA-mediated repression.

A dichotomous choice for metazoan cells is between proliferation and differentiation. Measuring tRNA pools in various cell types, we found two distinct subsets, one that is induced in proliferating cells, and repressed otherwise, and another with the opposite signature. Correspondingly, we found that genes serving cell-autonomous functions and genes involved in multicellularity obey distinct codon usage. Proliferation-induced and differentiation-induced tRNAs often carry anticodons that correspond to the codons enriched among the cell-autonomous and the multicellularity genes, respectively. Because mRNAs of cell-autonomous genes are induced in proliferation and cancer in particular, the concomitant induction of their codon-enriched tRNAs suggests coordination between transcription and translation. Histone modifications indeed change similarly in the vicinity of cell-autonomous genes and their corresponding tRNAs, and in multicellularity genes and their tRNAs, suggesting the existence of transcriptional programs coordinating tRNA supply and demand. Hence, we describe the existence of two distinct translation programs that operate during proliferation and differentiation.

Pseudouridylation (Ψ) is the most abundant and widespread type of RNA epigenetic modification in living organisms; however, the biological role of Ψ remains poorly understood. Here, we show that a Ψ-driven posttranscriptional program steers translation control to impact stem cell commitment during early embryogenesis. Mechanistically, the Ψ "writer" PUS7 modifies and activates a novel network of tRNA-derived small fragments (tRFs) targeting the translation initiation complex. PUS7 inactivation in embryonic stem cells impairs tRF-mediated translation regulation, leading to increased protein biosynthesis and defective germ layer specification. Remarkably, dysregulation of this posttranscriptional regulatory circuitry impairs hematopoietic stem cell commitment and is common to aggressive subtypes of human myelodysplastic syndromes. Our findings unveil a critical function of Ψ in directing translation control in stem cells with important implications for development and disease.

Epigenetic mechanisms act to change the accessibility of chromatin to transcriptional regulation locally and globally via modifications of the DNA and by modification or rearrangement of nucleosomes. Epigenetic gene regulation collaborates with genetic alterations in cancer development. This is evident from every aspect of tumor biology including cell growth and differentiation, cell cycle control, DNA repair, angiogenesis, migration, and evasion of host immunosurveillance. In contrast to genetic cancer causes, the possibility of reversing epigenetic codes may provide new targets for therapeutic intervention.Epigenetic programming is crucial in mammalian development, and stable inheritance of epigenetic settings is essential for the maintenance of tissue-and cell-typespecific functions (Li 2002). With the exception of controlled genomic rearrangements, such as those of the immunoglobulin and T-cell receptor genes in B and T cells, all other differentiation processes are initiated or maintained through epigenetic processes. Not surprisingly therefore, epigenetic gene regulation is characterized overall by a high degree of integrity and stability. Evidence is accumulating that suggests that the intrinsic stability is caused by multiple interlocking feedback mechanisms between functionally unrelated epigenetic layers, such as DNA methyltransferases (DNMTs) and histone modifying enzymes, resulting in the stable commitment of a locus to a particular activity state. In somatic cells, the transcriptional status of most genes is epigenetically fixed. However, other genes, such as cell cycle checkpoint genes and genes directly affected by exogenous stimuli such as growth factors or cell-cell contact, likely reside in a balanced state sensitive to dynamic adjustments in histone modifications, thereby allowing for rapid responses to specific stimuli. Perturbation of epigenetic balances may lead to alterations in gene expression, ultimately resulting in cellular transformation and malignant outgrowth; the involvement of deregulated epigenetic mechanisms in cancer development has received increased attention in recent years.Per definition, epigenetic regulators alter the activities and abilities of a cell without directly affecting and mutating the sequence of the DNA. In this review, we deal with epigenetic gene regulation as imposed by DNA methylation, covalent modifications of the canonical core histones, deposition of variant histone proteins, local nucleosome remodeling, and long-range epigenetic regulators. Understanding the molecular details behind "epigenetic cancer diseases" holds potentially important prospects for medical treatment, as it allows for novel strategies for drug development. A number of recent reviews have provided details on epigenetic mechanisms and their involvement in cancer, and we refer to these for more in-depth information on individual epigenetic mechanisms