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

Deletions or mutations of the retinoblastoma gene, RB1, are common features of many tumors and tumor cell lines. Recently, the RB1 gene product, p105-RB, has been shown to form stable protein/protein complexes with the oncoproteins of two DNA tumor viruses, the adenovirus E1A proteins and the simian virus 40 (SV40) large T antigen. Neither of these viruses is thought to be associated with human cancer, but they can cause tumors in rodents. Binding between the RB anti-oncoprotein and the adenovirus or SV40 oncoprotein can be recapitulated in vitro with coimmunoprecipitation mixing assays. These assays have been used to demonstrate that the E7 oncoprotein of the human papilloma virus type-16 can form similar complexes with p105-RB. Human papilloma virus-16 is found associated with approximately 50 percent of cervical carcinomas. These results suggest that these three DNA viruses may utilize similar mechanisms in transformation and implicate RB binding as a possible step in human papilloma virus-associated carcinogenesis.

The E7 proteins encoded by the human papillomaviruses (HPVs) associated with anogenital lesions share significant amino acid sequence homology. The E7 proteins of these different HPVs were assessed for their ability to form complexes with the retinoblastoma tumor suppressor gene product (p105‐RB). Similar to the E7 protein of HPV‐16, the E7 proteins of HPV‐18, HBV‐6b and HPV‐11 were found to associate with p105‐RB in vitro. The E7 proteins of HPV types associated with a high risk of malignant progression (HPV‐16 and HPV‐18) formed complexes with p105‐RB with equal affinities. The E7 proteins encoded by HPV types 6b and 11, which are associated with clinical lesions with a lower risk for progression, bound to p105‐RB with lower affinities. The E7 protein of the bovine papillomavirus type 1 (BPV‐1), which does not share structural similarity in the amino terminal region with the HPV E7 proteins, was unable to form a detectable complex with p105‐RB. The amino acid sequences of the HPV‐16 E7 protein involved in complex formation with p105‐RB in vitro have been mapped. Only a portion of the sequences that are conserved between the HPV E7 proteins and AdE1A were necessary for association with p105‐RB. Furthermore, the HPV‐16 E7‐p105‐RB complex was detected in an HPV‐16‐transformed human keratinocyte cell line.

No abstract

Approximately twelve percent of all human cancers are caused by oncoviruses. Human viral oncogenesis is complex and only a small percentage of the infected individuals develop cancer and often many years to decades after initial infection. This reflects the multistep nature of viral oncogenesis, host genetic variability and the fact that viruses contribute to only a portion of the oncogenic events. In this review, the Hallmarks of Cancer framework of Hanahan & Weinberg (2000 and 2011) is used to dissect the viral, host and environmental co-factors that contribute to the biology of multistep oncogenesis mediated by established human oncoviruses. The viruses discussed include Epstein Barr Virus (EBV), high-risk Human Papillomaviruses (HPV16/18), Hepatitis B and C viruses (HBV, HCV respectively), Human T-cell lymphotropic virus-1 (HTLV-1) and Kaposi’s sarcoma herpesvirus (KSHV).