Search

PurposeThis review is focused on radium and radionuclides in its decay chain in honor of Marie Curie, who discovered this element.Materials and methodsWe conglomerated current knowledge regarding radium and its history predating our present understanding of this radionuclide.ResultsAn overview of the properties of radium and its dose assessment is shown followed by discussions about both the negative detrimental and positive therapeutic applications of radium with this history and its evolution reflecting current innovations in medical science.ConclusionsWe hope to remind all those who are interested in the progress of science about the vagaries of the process of scientific discovery. In addition, we raise the interesting question of whether Marie Curie's initial success was in part possible due to her tight alignment with her husband Pierre Curie who pushed the work along.

Catalytically active proteins with divergent dual functions are often described as 'moonlighting'. In this work we characterize a new, chromatin-based function of Lys20, a moonlighting protein that is well known for its role in metabolism. Lys20 was initially described as homocitrate synthase (HCS), the first enzyme in the lysine biosynthetic pathway in yeast. Its nuclear localization led to the discovery of a key role for Lys20 in DNA damage repair through its interaction with the MYST family histone acetyltransferase Esa1. Overexpression of Lys20 promotes suppression of DNA damage sensitivity of esa1 mutants. In this work, by taking advantage of LYS20 mutants that are active in repair but not in lysine biosynthesis, the mechanism of suppression of esa1 was characterized. First we analyzed the chromatin landscape of esa1 cells, finding impaired histone acetylation and eviction. Lys20 was recruited to sites of DNA damage, and its overexpression promoted enhanced recruitment of the INO80 remodeling complex to restore normal histone eviction at the damage sites. This study improves understanding of the evolutionary, structural and biological relevance of independent activities in a moonlighting protein and links metabolism to DNA damage repair.

Catalytically active proteins with divergent dual functions are often described as 'moonlighting'. In this work we characterize a new, chromatin-based function of Lys20, a moonlighting protein that is well known for its role in metabolism. Lys20 was initially described as homocitrate synthase (HCS), the first enzyme in the lysine biosynthetic pathway in yeast. Its nuclear localization led to the discovery of a key role for Lys20 in DNA damage repair through its interaction with the MYST family histone acetyltransferase Esa1. Overexpression of Lys20 promotes suppression of DNA damage sensitivity of esa1 mutants. In this work, by taking advantage of LYS20 mutants that are active in repair but not in lysine biosynthesis, the mechanism of suppression of esa1 was characterized. First we analyzed the chromatin landscape of esa1 cells, finding impaired histone acetylation and eviction. Lys20 was recruited to sites of DNA damage, and its overexpression promoted enhanced recruitment of the INO80 remodeling complex to restore normal histone eviction at the damage sites. This study improves understanding of the evolutionary, structural and biological relevance of independent activities in a moonlighting protein and links metabolism to DNA damage repair.

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.

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.