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

The E2F transcription factor integrates cellular signals and coordinates cell cycle progression. Our prior studies demonstrated selective induction and stabilization of E2F1 through ATM-dependent phosphorylation in response to DNA damage. Here we report that DNA topoisomerase II␤ binding protein 1 (TopBP1) regulates E2F1 during DNA damage. TopBP1 contains eight BRCT (BRCA1 carboxyl-terminal) motifs and upon DNA damage is recruited to stalled replication forks, where it participates in a DNA damage checkpoint. Here we demonstrated an interaction between TopBP1 and E2F1. The interaction depended on the amino terminus of E2F1 and the sixth BRCT domain of TopBP1. It was specific to E2F1 and was not observed in E2F2, E2F3, or E2F4. This interaction was induced by DNA damage and phosphorylation of E2F1 by ATM. Through this interaction, TopBP1 repressed multiple activities of E2F1, including transcriptional activity, induction of S-phase entry, and apoptosis. Furthermore, TopBP1 relocalized E2F1 from diffuse nuclear distribution to discrete punctate nuclear foci, where E2F1 colocalized with TopBP1 and BRCA1. Thus, the specific interaction between TopBP1 and E2F1 during DNA damage inhibits the known E2F1 activities but recruits E2F1 to a BRCA1-containing repair complex, suggesting a direct role of E2F1 in DNA damage checkpoint/repair at stalled replication forks.The E2F transcription factors E2F1 to E2F6 bind to E2F sites in promoters and regulate the expression of a large array of genes that encode proteins important for DNA replication and cell cycle progression. In response to growth signals, activated G 1 cyclin-dependent kinases phosphorylate retinoblastoma protein (pRb) and release E2F from pRb binding. This event is critical in controlling G 1 /S transition (9, 23). Among the E2F family members, E2F1, E2F2, and E2F3 are transcriptional activators and are induced in response to growth stimulation, with peak accumulation at G 1 /S. Together, they are essential for cellular proliferation since a combined mutation of E2F1, -2, and -3 completely blocks cellular proliferation (31), whereas E2F4 and E2F5 function mainly as transcriptional repressors (9, 23).Among the same subclass of E2F family, each individual E2F member has its unique biological properties. The unique feature for E2F1 is its activity in apoptosis induction (8,14,21) and its function as a tumor suppressor. E2F1 Ϫ/Ϫ mice are viable but develop a broad spectrum of tumors (10, 37). This unique tumor suppressor function could be partly attributed to the apoptotic activity of E2F1. In comparison, overexpression of E2F2 or E2F3 was shown to induce apoptosis as well, but to a lesser extent than with E2F1 (21, 28).Recently, we showed that DNA damage specifically induces E2F1 but not the other E2F family proteins (17). In response to DNA damage, two key regulators of DNA damage checkpoints, ATM and ATR (ATM-Rad3-related protein) kinases, phosphorylate E2F1 but not E2F2, E2F3, or E2F4. The specific phosphorylation of E2F1 at serine 31 by ATM/ATR leads to stabili...

TopBP1 (DNA topoisomerase II␤ binding protein I) contains multiple BRCT domains and is involved in replication and the DNA damage checkpoint. Through its BRCT domain, TopBP1 interacts with and represses exclusively E2F1 but not other E2F factors. This regulation of E2F1 transcriptional activity is mediated by a pRb-independent, but Brg1/Brm-dependent mechanism. TopBP1 recruits Brg1/Brm, a central component of the SWI/SNF chromatin-remodeling complex, to E2F1-responsive promoters and represses the activities of E2F1, but not E2F2 or E2F3. This regulation is crucial in the control of E2F1-dependent apoptosis during normal cell growth and DNA damage. Interestingly, TopBP1 is induced by E2F and interacts with E2F1 during G1/S transition. Thus, TopBP1 functions as a critical modulator and serves as a negative feedback regulator of E2F1 by inhibiting E2F1-dependent apoptosis during G1/S transition as well as DNA damage to promote cell survival.

Regulation of E2F1-mediated apoptosis is essential for proper cellular growth. This control requires TopBP1, a BRCT (BRCA1 carboxyl-terminal) domain-containing protein, which interacts with E2F1 but not other E2Fs and represses its proapoptotic activity. We now show that the regulation of E2F1 by TopBP1 involves the phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K)-Akt signaling pathway, and is independent of pocket proteins. Akt phosphorylates TopBP1 in vitro and in vivo. Phosphorylation by Akt induces oligomerization of TopBP1 through its seventh and eighth BRCT domains. The Akt-dependent oligomerization is crucial for TopBP1 to interact with and repress E2F1. Akt phosphorylation is also required for interaction between TopBP1 and Miz1 or HPV16 E2, and repression of Miz1 transcriptional activity, suggesting a general role for TopBP1 oligomerization in the control of transcription factors. Together, this study defines a novel pathway involving PI3K-AktTopBP1 for specific control of E2F1 apoptosis, in parallel with cyclin-Cdk-Rb for general control of E2F activities.

Microcephalin (MCPH1) has a crucial role in the DNA damage response by promoting the expression of Checkpoint kinase 1 (CHK1) and Breast cancer susceptibility gene 1 (BRCA1); however, the mechanism of this regulation remains unclear. Here, we show that MCPH1 regulates CHK1 and BRCA1 through the interaction with E2F1 on the promoters of both genes. MCPH1 also regulates other E2F target genes involved in DNA repair and apoptosis such as RAD51, DDB2, TOPBP1, p73 and caspases. MCPH1 interacts with E2F1 on the p73 promoter, and regulates p73 induction and E2F1-induced apoptosis as a result of DNA damage. MCPH1 forms oligomers through the second and third BRCT domains. An MCPH1 mutant containing only its oligomerization domain has a dominant-negative role by blocking MCPH1 binding to E2F1. It also inhibits p73 induction in DNA damage and E2F1-dependent apoptosis. Taken together, MCPH1 cooperates with E2F1 to regulate genes involved in DNA repair, checkpoint and apoptosis, and might participate in the maintenance of genomic integrity. Keywords: MCPH1/BRIT1; E2F1; p73; Chk1; oligomerization EMBO reports (2008) 9, 907-915.

Proper control of the G 1 /S checkpoint is essential for normal proliferation. The activity of p53 must be kept at a very low level under unstressed conditions to allow growth. Here we provide evidence supporting a crucial role for TopBP1 in actively repressing p53. Depletion of TopBP1 upregulates p53 target genes involved in cell cycle arrest and apoptosis and enhances DNA damage-induced apoptosis. The regulation is mediated by an interaction between the seventh and eighth BRCT domains of TopBP1 and the DNA-binding domain of p53, leading to inhibition of p53 promoter binding activity. Importantly, TopBP1 overexpression is found in 46 of 79 primary breast cancer tissues and is associated with high tumor grade and shorter patient survival time. Overexpression of TopBP1 to a level comparable to that seen in breast tumors leads to inhibition of p53 target gene expression and DNA damage-induced apoptosis and G 1 arrest. Thus, a physiological level of TopBP1 is essential for normal G 1 /S transition, but a pathological level of TopBP1 in cancer may perturb p53 function and contribute to an aggressive tumor behavior.

Several ring between ring fingers (RBR) -domain proteins, such as Parkin and Parc, have been shown to be E3 ligases involved in important biological processes. Here, we identify a poorly characterized RBR protein, Ring Finger protein 144A (RNF144A), as the first, to our knowledge, mammalian E3 ubiquitin ligase for DNAPKcs. We show that DNA damage induces RNF144A expression in a p53-dependent manner. RNF144A is mainly localized in the cytoplasmic vesicles and plasma membrane and interacts with cytoplasmic DNA-dependent protein kinase, catalytic subunit (DNA-PKcs). DNA-PKcs plays a critical role in the nonhomologous end-joining DNA repair pathway and provides prosurvival signaling during DNA damage. We show that RNF144A induces ubiquitination of DNA-PKcs in vitro and in vivo and promotes its degradation. Depletion of RNF144A leads to an increased level of DNA-PKcs and resistance to DNA damaging agents, which is reversed by a DNA-PK inhibitor. Taken together, our data suggest that RNF144A may be involved in p53-mediated apoptosis through down-regulation of DNA-PKcs when cells suffer from persistent or severe DNA damage insults.endosome | DDR | transmembrane domain R ing Finger protein 144A (RNF144A) and RNF144B belong to the RNF144 family and are very conserved in higher eukaryotes. Both proteins contain an RING1-in between rings (IBR) -RING2 [termed the ring between ring fingers (RBR)] domain in the N terminus and a potential single-transmembrane (TM) domain in the C terminus. RBR domain-containing proteins usually possess an E3 ubiquitin ligase activity and are involved in regulation of the cell cycle and apoptosis (1-3). These proteins function like RING (Really Interesting New Gene)/HECT (Homologous to the E6AP Carboxyl Terminus) hybrids (i.e., they use their RING1 to bind E2s) but then transfer ubiquitin onto a conserved cysteine residue in the RING2 domain through a thioester linkage similar to the E3 thioester-linked ubiquitin intermediates in HECT-type E3 ligases (4). It has been shown that DNA damage induces RNF144B expression to promote cell apoptosis through regulation of the stability of p21 (5), BAX (1), and p73 (6). RNF144B shares 71% homology of amino acids with RNF144A.

No abstract