Hand, foot and mouth disease (HFMD) caused by Human Enterovirus A71 (HEVA71) infection is typically a benign infection. However, in minority of cases, children can develop severe neuropathology that culminate in fatality. Approximately 36.9% of HEVA71-related hospitalizations develop neurological complications, of which 10.5% are fatal. Yet, the mechanism by which HEVA71 induces these neurological deficits remain unclear. Here, we show that HEVA71-infected astrocytes release CXCL1 which supports viral replication in neurons by activating the CXCR2 receptor-associated ERK1/2 signaling pathway. Elevated CXCL1 levels correlates with disease severity in a HEVA71-infected mice model. In humans infected with HEVA71, high CXCL1 levels are only present in patients presenting neurological complications. CXCL1 release is specifically triggered by VP4 synthesis in HEVA71-infected astrocytes, which then acts via its receptor CXCR2 to enhance viral replication in neurons. Perturbing CXCL1 signaling or VP4 myristylation strongly attenuates viral replication. Treatment with AZD5069, a CXCL1-specific competitor, improves survival and lessens disease severity in infected animals. Collectively, these results highlight the CXCL1-CXCR2 signaling pathway as a potential target against HFMD neuropathogenesis.
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.