References of "Walter, Jochen"
     in
Bookmark and Share    
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailTREM2 triggers microglial density and age‐related neuronal loss
Linnartz-Gerlach, Bettina; Bodea, Liviu-Gabriel; Klaus, Christine et al

in Glia (2018)

The microglial triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 2 (TREM2) signals via the activatory membrane adaptor molecule TYROBP. Genetic variants or mutations of TREM2 or TYROBP have been linked to ... [more ▼]

The microglial triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 2 (TREM2) signals via the activatory membrane adaptor molecule TYROBP. Genetic variants or mutations of TREM2 or TYROBP have been linked to inflammatory neurodegenerative diseases associated with aging. The typical aging process goes along with microglial changes and mild neuronal loss, but the exact contribution of TREM2 is still unclear. Aged TREM2 knock‐out mice showed decreased age‐related neuronal loss in the substantia nigra and the hippocampus. Transcriptomic analysis of the brains of 24 months old TREM2 knock‐out mice revealed 211 differentially expressed genes mostly downregulated and associated with complement activation and oxidative stress response pathways. Consistently, 24 months old TREM2 knock‐out mice showed lower transcription of microglial (Aif1 and Tmem119), oxidative stress markers (Inos, Cyba, and Cybb) and complement components (C1qa, C1qb, C1qc, C3, C4b, Itgam, and Itgb2), decreased microglial numbers and expression of the microglial activation marker Cd68, as well as accumulation of oxidized lipids. Cultured microglia of TREM2 knock‐out mice showed reduced phagocytosis and oxidative burst. Thus, microglial TREM2 contributes to age‐related microglial changes, phagocytic oxidative burst, and loss of neurons with possible detrimental effects during physiological aging. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 143 (15 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailGuidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy.
Klionsky, Daniel J.; Abdalla, Fabio C.; Abeliovich, Hagai et al

in Autophagy (2012), 8(4), 445-544

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 ... [more ▼]

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. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 560 (49 UL)