Activation of surrogate death receptor signaling triggers peroxynitrite-dependent execution of cisplatin-resistant cancer cells

Platinum-based drugs remain as the cornerstone of cancer chemotherapy; however, development of multidrug resistance presents a therapeutic challenge. This study aims at understanding the molecular mechanisms underlying resistance to cisplatin and unraveling surrogate signaling networks that could revert sensitivity to apoptosis stimuli. We made use of three different sets of cell lines, A549 and H2030 non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and A2780 ovarian cancer cells and their cisplatin-resistant variants. Here we report that cisplatin-resistant cell lines displayed a multidrug-resistant phenotype. Changes in mitochondrial metabolism and defective mitochondrial signaling were unraveled in the resistant cells. More interestingly, a marked increase in sensitivity of the resistant cells to death receptor-induced apoptosis, in particular TRAIL (TNF-related apoptosis-inducing ligand)-mediated execution, was observed. Although this was not associated with an increase in gene transcription, a significant increase in the localization of TRAIL death receptor, DR4, to the lipid raft subdomains of plasma membrane was detected in the resistant variants. Furthermore, exposure of cisplatin-resistant cells to TRAIL resulted in upregulation of inducible nitric oxide synthase (iNOS) and increase in nitric oxide (NO) production that triggered the generation of peroxynitrite (ONOO(-)). Scavenging ONOO(-) rescued cells from TRAIL-induced apoptosis, thereby suggesting a critical role of ONOO(-) in TRAIL-induced execution of cisplatin-resistant cells. Notably, preincubation of cells with TRAIL restored sensitivity of resistant cells to cisplatin. These data provide compelling evidence for employing strategies to trigger death receptor signaling as a second-line treatment for cisplatin-resistant cancers

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)

International audienceIn 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field