Reader Comments

Post a new comment on this article

problem with interpretation of the data

Posted by criticalchristian on 07 Apr 2009 at 22:22 GMT

Autophagy is indicated by a conversion of LC3-I to LC3-II? Therefore I have problems in the interpretation of the data presented by the authors of this article.
Please clarify!

No competing interests declared.

RE: problem with interpretation of the data

TFMeyer replied to criticalchristian on 15 Apr 2009 at 13:46 GMT

Thank you for your comments:

To clarify your query please see Fig. 7 - the answer is clearly stated ; here we have clearly interpreted our data with regard to autophagy.

As you know the hallmark of autophagy is the formation of autophagosomes. This formation is universally monitored using blot against LC3 (importantly the amount of LC3 II correlates to the amount of autophagosomes formation). Also, we have done another experiment to prove that by autophagosome quantification.

In the manuscript page 4 under the headline 'Irga6 is important in the induction of autophagy independent of C. trachomatis infection':

‘To answer these questions, we used immunoblots to monitor the formation of early autophagosomal precursors and newly formed autophagosomes by following changes in LC3 expression. LC3 exists in two forms: the cytosolic LC3-I form, which has a molecular weight of approximately 18 kDa and the membrane-bound LC3-II form, with a molecular weight of 16 kDa (Kabeya, et al., 2000). LC3-II is bound to the membrane of nascent autophagosomes and correlates with the amount of LC3-positive autophagosomes. In WT cells, LC3- II levels increased in response to IFNc stimulation (Figure 7A, lane 3). Notably, levels of IFNγ-induced LC3-II were comparable to those induced by rapamycin (Rapa), a conventional inducer of autophagy (Figure 7A, lane 2). Infection with C. trachomatis for 4 h or 8 h did not influence LC3-II expression (Figure 7A, lanes 4 and 6, respectively)….

To confirm the importance of Irga6 in autophagy, we quantified the number of autophagosomes in the cytoplasm. In contrast to control untreated WT cells (Figure 7D), numbers of GFP-LC3- decorated structures per cell in infected and uninfected WT cells exposed to either IFNγ or Rapa were increased. In agreement with our immunoblot analysis, IFNγ or Rapa induction did not increase the amount of autophagosomes and we observed only low numbers of decorated vesicles in Irga62/2 cells.’

We hope this clarifies your query

Best wishes

Thomas F. Meyer

No competing interests declared.

RE: RE: problem with interpretation of the data

criticalchristian replied to TFMeyer on 05 May 2009 at 22:16 GMT

Dear Dr Meyer,

Thanks for your attempt to clarify things concerning your article.

Still it remains mysterious how LC3-II can appear in treated cells when there is no LC3-I from which it can be converted from (into the membrane bound form II) in your untreated controls.

The quantification of LC3-GFP vesicle as an indicator for autophagosome formation that you mentioned in your reply also is not as convincing as it should be for a journal of the PLOS group.
What was your reason to normalize your countings to controls and which method did you use to do so (not meantioned in your paper).

For a good example to quantify autophagy by different means you might look at Tasdemir et al., 2008.

Best wishes

Christian

No competing interests declared.