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

Research in autophagy continues to accelerate,(1) and as a result many new scientists are entering the field. Accordingly, it is important to establish a standard set of criteria for monitoring macroautophagy in different organisms. Recent reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose.(2,3) There are many useful and convenient methods that can be used to monitor macroautophagy in yeast, but relatively few in other model systems, and there is much confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure macroautophagy in higher eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers of autophagosomes versus those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway; thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from fully functional autophagy that includes delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of the methods that can be used by investigators who are attempting to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as by reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that investigate these processes. This set of guidelines is 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 verify an autophagic response.

No abstract

BackgroundSolid tumours comprise various cells, including cancer cells, resident stromal cells, migratory haemopoietic cells and other. These cells regulate tumour growth and metastasis. Macrophages constitute probably the most important element of all interactions within the tumour microenvironment. However, the molecular mechanism, that guides tumour environment, still remains unknown. Exploring the underlying molecular mechanisms that orchestrate these phenomena has been the aim of our study.A co-culture of canine mammary cancer cells and macrophages was established and maintained for 72 hrs. Having sorted the cells, gene expression in cancer cells and macrophages, using DNA microarrays, was examined. The results were confirmed using real-time qPCR and confocal microscopy. Moreover, their ability for migration and invasion has been assessed.ResultsMicroarray analysis showed that the up-regulated genes in the cancer cell lines are involved in 15 highly over-manifested pathways. The pathways that drew our diligent attention included: the inflammation pathway mediated by chemokine and cytokine, the Toll receptor signalling pathway and the B cell activation. The up-regulated genes in the macrophages were involved in only 18 significantly over-manifested pathways: the angiogenesis, the p53 pathway feedback loops2 and the Wnt signalling pathway. The microarray analysis revealed that co-culturing of cancer cells with macrophages initiated the myeloid-specific antigen expression in cancer cells, as well as cytokine/chemokine genes expression. This finding was confirmed at mRNA and protein level. Moreover, we showed that macrophages increase cancer migration and invasion.ConclusionsThe presence of macrophages in the cancer environment induces acquisition of the macrophage phenotype (specific antigens and chemokines/cytokines expression) in cancer cells. We presumed that cancer cells also acquire other myeloid features, such as: capabilities of cell rolling, spreading, migration and matrix invasion (what has also been confirmed by our results). It may, perhaps, be the result of myeloid-cancer cell hybrid formation, or cancer cells mimicking macrophages phenotype, owing to various proteins secreted by macrophages.

The decline of mammary epithelial cell (MEC) number during mammary gland involution in the cow is due to inhibition of proliferation and induction of apoptosis. Transforming growth factorbeta 1 (TGF-b1) belongs to a group of intramammary auto/paracrine inhibitors of bovine MEC growth and inducers of apoptosis. However, the mechanism responsible for the regulation of TGF-b1 expression in MEC is not known. The present study examined the effect of the hormones, growth hormone (GH), somatostatin (STS), 17-b oestradiol (E2), progesterone (P4), as well as the growth factors, insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-I) and epidermal growth factor (EGF), on TGF-b1 expression in the bovine MEC lines, BME-UV1 and MAC-T. The model of apoptosis in bovine mammary gland in vitro was applied by reduction of fetal bovine serum (FBS) (from 10 % to 2% or 0 . 5 % FBS) in the cell environment to show the relationship between TGF-b1 expression and apoptosis in bovine MEC. RT-PCR, Western blot and laser scanning cytometry (LSC) were used for analysis of TGF-b1 transcript and protein level as well as apoptosis and cell cycle in examined MEC. In this model of apoptosis, FBS deficiency (mimicking the naturally occurring decline in the access of bioactive compounds and nutrients at the end of lactation and dry period) was associated with increased TGF-b1 expression at the level of transcript and protein, induction of apoptosis and inhibition of cell cycle. Exogenous TGF-b1, IGF-I, EGF and GH inhibited FBSdeficiency-stimulated TGF-b1 expression. The suppressive effect of GH was reversed when cells were maintained longer in FBS-deficient medium. In general, STS, E2 and P4 increased TGF-b1 expression. However, this effect was dependent on hormone concentration and cell line. BME-UV1 cells were much more responsive to the peptides, GH, STS, IGF-I and EGF, whereas MAC-T cells were more responsive to the steroid sex hormones: E2 and P4.

BackgroundIn both women and female dogs, the most prevalent type of malignant neoplasm is the spontaneous mammary tumor. In dogs, half of these are malignant. The treatment of choice for the canine patients is surgical mastectomy. Unfortunately, it often fails in high-risk, locally invasive mammary tumors as of during the time of the surgery the micro-metastases are present. Moreover, there are neither large studies conducting to prove of the benefit from the chemotherapy in dogs nor established chemotherapy treatment protocols available. Additionally, the effectiveness of each individual chemotherapeutic agent and drug resistance of canine mammary cancer have not yet been characterized. That has become the aim of our study, to assess the expression of PGP, BCRP, MRP1 and MRP3 in canine mammary cancer cell lines and to investigate their role in cancer resistance to vinblastine, cisplatin and cyclophosphamide with using RNAi approach.ResultsThe results suggested that in canine mammary cancer, the vinblastine efflux was mediated by PGP and MRP1 proteins, cisplatin efflux was mediated by all four examined efflux pumps (PGP, BCRP, MRP1 and MRP3), whereas cyclophosphamide resistance was related to BCRP activity. RNAi silencing of these efflux pumps significantly decreased IC50 doses of the examined drugs in canine mammary carcinoma cells.ConclusionsOur results have indicated the treatment of cells involving use of the siRNA targeting efflux pumps could be a beneficial approach in the future.

MicroRNAs (miRNAs) are small non-coding RNAs that participate in the regulation of gene expression. Their role during mammary gland development is still largely unknown. In this study, we performed a microarray analysis to identify miRNAs associated with high mammogenic potential of the bovine mammary gland. We identified 54 significantly differentially expressed miRNAs between the mammary tissue of dairy (Holstein-Friesian, HF) and beef (Limousin, LM) postpubertal heifers. Fifty-two miRNAs had higher expression in the mammary tissue of LM heifers. The expression of the top candidate miRNAs (bta-miR-10b, bta-miR-29b, bta-miR-101, bta-miR-375, bta-miR-2285t, bta-miR-146b, bta-let7b, bta-miR-107, bta-miR-1434-3p) identified in the microarray experiment was additionally evaluated by qPCR. Enrichment analyses for targeted genes revealed that the major differences between miRNA expression in the mammary gland of HF versus LM were associated with the regulation of signalling pathways that are crucial for mammary gland development, such as TGF-beta, insulin, WNT and inflammatory pathways. Moreover, a number of genes potentially targeted by significantly differentially expressed miRNAs were associated with the activity of mammary stem cells. These data indicate that the high developmental potential of the mammary gland in dairy cattle, leading to high milk productivity, depends also on a specific miRNA expression pattern.

No abstract