bims-raghud Biomed News
on RagGTPases in human diseases
Issue of 2025–10–12
two papers selected by
Irene Sambri, TIGEM



  1. Front Biosci (Landmark Ed). 2025 Sep 28. 30(9): 38730
      Autophagy is a highly conserved cellular degradation and recycling process essential for maintaining cellular homeostasis. However, autophagic activity declines with age, contributing to the accumulation of damaged organelles and protein aggregates. The decline in autophagic activity is considered a primary hallmark of aging, as it contributes to cellular dysfunction and the onset of age-associated diseases, including neurodegenerative disorders and metabolic dysfunction. Sustaining autophagy with age requires transcriptional regulation, which may become impaired with age. In this review, we summarize current understanding of transcriptional regulation of autophagy during aging, with a specific focus on transcription factor EB (TFEB) and forkhead box O (FOXO) transcription factors. We integrate mechanistic insights from both mammalian systems and model organisms to highlight how their regulatory activity declines with age through changes in expression, post-translational modifications, nuclear transport, and transcriptional efficiency. We further explore pharmacological and lifestyle interventions aimed at restoring autophagic function to mitigate cellular decline. Given the pivotal role of autophagy in promoting cellular resilience and disease prevention, targeting autophagy-regulating transcription factors holds promise as a therapeutic strategy to counteract age-related functional decline and extend healthspan.
    Keywords:  aging/genetics; autophagy/genetics; drug effects/therapeutic use; forkhead box O (FOXO) transcription factors/forkhead transcription factors; transcription factor EB (TFEB)/microphthalmia-associated transcription factors (MITFs)
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.31083/FBL38730
  2. North Clin Istanb. 2025 ;12(4): 438-444
       OBJECTIVE: TFE3 rearranged carcinomas constitute 5% of malignant tumours of the kidney in adults. TFE3 immunohistochemistry plays a crucial role in the diagnosis. TFE3 positivity in the appropriate histological context supports the diagnosis of Xp11 translocation renal cell carcinomas. However, there isn't any standardized approach to performing and interpreting immunohistochemical staining.
    METHODS: A total of 51 renal cell carcinomas are included in the study. In this study, we compared the expression profiles of two different anti-TFE3 antibody clones (MRQ37, Cell Marque, and IHC627, GeneAbTM) on renal cell carcinoma samples that have conflicting morphologies and assessed the overall performance of these clones to identify TFE3 rearranged carcinomas.
    RESULTS: There was a statistically significant difference in terms of immunohistochemical staining with TFE3-MRQ37 clone between TFE3 rearranged renal cell carcinomas and other subtypes, while no significant difference was found in staining with TFE3-IHC672. 47% of cases were stained with the TFE3-IHC672 clone and 9.8 % of cases were stained with the TFE3-MRQ37 clone at different staining intensities and proportions.
    CONCLUSION: The TFE3-MRQ37 clone is easier to interpret because of the absence of background staining and is more reliable in identifying TFE3 rearranged renal cell carcinomas. However, because of various sensitivity and specificity rates, and immunoreactivity in many subtypes of renal cell carcinomas, there is a need for a standardised approach for TFE3 immunohistochemistry for diagnostic use in TFE3-tRCCs.
    Keywords:  Renal cell carcinoma; TFE3 rearrangement; immunohistochemistry
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.14744/nci.2024.19794