Influenza virus non-structural protein 1 (NS1) counteracts host antiviral innate immune responses by inhibiting Retinoic acid inducible gene-I (RIG-I) activation. However, whether NS1 also specifically regulates RIG-I transcription is unknown. Here, we identify a CCAAT/Enhancer Binding Protein beta (C/EBPβ) binding site in the RIG-I promoter as a repressor element, and show that NS1 promotes C/EBPβ phosphorylation and its recruitment to the RIG-I promoter as a C/EBPβ/NS1 complex. C/EBPβ overexpression and siRNA knockdown in human lung epithelial cells resulted in suppression and activation of RIG-I expression respectively, implying a negative regulatory role of C/EBPβ. Further, C/EBPβ phosphorylation, its interaction with NS1 and occupancy at the RIG-I promoter was associated with RIG-I transcriptional inhibition. These findings provide an important insight into the molecular mechanism by which influenza NS1 commandeers RIG-I transcriptional regulation and suppresses host antiviral responses.
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.