Mosquito-borne flaviviruses, including dengue virus (DENV) and Zika virus (ZIKV), are a growing public health concern. Systems-level analysis of how flaviviruses hijack cellular processes through virus-host protein-protein interactions (PPIs) provides information about their replication and pathogenic mechanisms. We used affinity purification-mass spectrometry (AP-MS) to compare flavivirus-host interactions for two viruses (DENV and ZIKV) in two hosts (human and mosquito). Conserved virus-host PPIs revealed that the flavivirus NS5 protein suppresses interferon stimulated genes by inhibiting recruitment of the transcription complex PAF1C and that chemical modulation of SEC61 inhibits DENV and ZIKV replication in human and mosquito cells. Finally, we identified a ZIKV-specific interaction between NS4A and ANKLE2, a gene linked to hereditary microcephaly, and showed that ZIKV NS4A causes microcephaly in Drosophila in an ANKLE2-dependent manner. Thus, comparative flavivirus-host PPI mapping provides biological insights and, when coupled with in vivo models, can be used to unravel pathogenic mechanisms.
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.