Blog
About

12
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Inhibition of autophagy with bafilomycin and chloroquine decreases mitochondrial quality and bioenergetic function in primary neurons

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Autophagy is an important cell recycling program responsible for the clearance of damaged or long-lived proteins and organelles. Pharmacological modulators of this pathway have been extensively utilized in a wide range of basic research and pre-clinical studies. Bafilomycin A1 and chloroquine are commonly used compounds that inhibit autophagy by targeting the lysosomes but through distinct mechanisms. Since it is now clear that mitochondrial quality control, particularly in neurons, is dependent on autophagy, it is important to determine whether these compounds modify cellular bioenergetics. To address this, we cultured primary rat cortical neurons from E18 embryos and used the Seahorse XF96 analyzer and a targeted metabolomics approach to measure the effects of bafilomycin A1 and chloroquine on bioenergetics and metabolism. We found that both bafilomycin and chloroquine could significantly increase the autophagosome marker LC3-II and inhibit key parameters of mitochondrial function, and increase mtDNA damage. Furthermore, we observed significant alterations in TCA cycle intermediates, particularly those downstream of citrate synthase and those linked to glutaminolysis. Taken together, these data demonstrate a significant impact of bafilomycin and chloroquine on cellular bioenergetics and metabolism consistent with decreased mitochondrial quality associated with inhibition of autophagy.

          Highlights

          • Autophagy inhibition decreased mitochondrial bioenergetics in intact neurons.

          • Autophagy inhibition decreased mitochondrial complexes I, II or IV substrate linked respiration.

          • Autophagy inhibition increased mitochondrial DNA damage.

          • Autophagy inhibition decreased major components of the Krebs cycle.

          • Autophagy inhibition resulted in decreased citrate synthase activities.

          Graphical abstract

          Related collections

          Most cited references 41

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          NIH Image to ImageJ: 25 years of image analysis.

          For the past 25 years NIH Image and ImageJ software have been pioneers as open tools for the analysis of scientific images. We discuss the origins, challenges and solutions of these two programs, and how their history can serve to advise and inform other software projects.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy.

            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.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              How to interpret LC3 immunoblotting.

              Microtubule-associated protein light chain 3 (LC3) is now widely used to monitor autophagy. One approach is to detect LC3 conversion (LC3-I to LC3-II) by immunoblot analysis because the amount of LC3-II is clearly correlated with the number of autophagosomes. However, LC3-II itself is degraded by autophagy, making interpretation of the results of LC3 immunoblotting problematic. Furthermore, the amount of LC3 at a certain time point does not indicate autophagic flux, and therefore, it is important to measure the amount of LC3-II delivered to lysosomes by comparing LC3-II levels in the presence and absence of lysosomal protease inhibitors. Another problem with this method is that LC3-II tends to be much more sensitive to be detected by immunoblotting than LC3-I. Accordingly, simple comparison of LC3-I and LC3-II, or summation of LC3-I and LC3-II for ratio determinations, may not be appropriate, and rather, the amount of LC3-II can be compared between samples.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Redox Biol
                Redox Biol
                Redox Biology
                Elsevier
                2213-2317
                18 November 2016
                April 2017
                18 November 2016
                : 11
                : 73-81
                Affiliations
                [a ]Department of Pathology and Center for Free Radical Biology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL 35294, United States
                [b ]Targeted Metabolomics & Proteomics Laboratory, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL 35294, United States
                [c ]VA Medical Center, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL 35294, United States
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence to: Department of Pathology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, BMRII-534, 901 1919th Street S., Birmingham, AL 35294-0017, United States. jianhuazhang@ 123456uabmc.edu
                Article
                S2213-2317(16)30311-1
                10.1016/j.redox.2016.11.004
                5124357
                27889640
                © 2016 Published by Elsevier B.V.

                This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

                Categories
                Research Paper

                Comments

                Comment on this article