Péter Lőw’s research while affiliated with Eötvös Loránd University and other places

Nowadays, extracellular vesicles (EVs) raise a great interest as they are implicated in intercellular communication between cancer and stromal cells. Our aim was to understand how vesicular NME1 and NME2 released by breast cancer cells influence the tumour microenvironment. As a model, we used human invasive breast carcinoma cells overexpressing NME1 or NME2, and first analysed in detail the presence of both isoforms in EV subtypes by capillary Western immunoassay (WES) and immunoelectron microscopy. Data obtained by both methods showed that NME1 was present in medium-sized EVs or microvesicles, whereas NME2 was abundant in both microvesicles and small-sized EVs or exosomes. Next, human skin-derived fibroblasts were treated with NME1 or NME2 containing EVs, and subsequently mRNA expression changes in fibroblasts were examined. RNAseq results showed that the expression of fatty acid and cholesterol metabolism-related genes was decreased significantly in response to NME1 or NME2 containing EV treatment. We found that FASN (fatty acid synthase) and ACSS2 (acyl-coenzyme A synthetase short-chain family member 2), related to fatty acid synthesis and oxidation, were underexpressed in NME1/2-EV-treated fibroblasts. Our data show an emerging link between NME-containing EVs and regulation of tumour metabolism.

Gastropoda is the largest group in the phylum Mollusca, comprising over 25000 genus‐group names that encompass snails, conch, whelks, cowries, abalone, limpets, slugs, sea hares, and nudibranchs among others. The presence of a well‐defined head and foot, and asymmetric organs, a feature resulting from the unique torsion process that occurs during embryonic development, characterize the gastropods. This chapter provides an overview of the microscopic anatomy of each major tissue with the ambitious aim of summarizing the basic features across a broad and diverse taxonomic group. Ideally, histology samples are collected soon after death or euthanasia to minimize postmortem decomposition. If a live gastropod is to be euthanized for histologic assessment of tissues, it is advisable to use humane euthanasia methods and to keep the animal in a stress‐free environment beforehand.

An annelid, phylum name Annelida, also called segmented worm, is any member of a phylum of invertebrate animals characterized by the possession of a body cavity (or coelom), movable bristles (or setae), and a body divided into segments by transverse rings, or annulations, from which they take their name. The body wall consists of the epidermis, connective tissue that underlies it, and muscle layers. The alimentary canal of Lumbricus is straight and relatively simple. The annelid intestinal wall is composed of an inner layer of mucous membrane (tunica mucosa) consisting of a single layer of epithelium (lamina epithelialis) resting on a delicate loose connective tissue layer (lamina propria) containing blood sinuses or capillaries. The excretory system of Lumbricus is composed of two different and spatially separated substructures: the podocytes and the metanephridium.

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.

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.

the PDF can be download freely on pubmed. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33634751/

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.

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.