Güncel İn Vitro Sitotoksisite Testleri

Year 2021, Volume: 41 Issue: 1, 45 - 63, 01.01.2021

Pınar Erkekoğlu , Terken Baydar

Abstract

Bir ilaç etkin maddesinin, kozmetik ürünün, çevresel bir kimyasalın (pestisitler, endokrin bozucular, ağır metaller, nanopartiküller gibi), ağır metallerin ve fiziksel veya biyolojik ajanların in vitro olarak sitotoksik etkilerinin güncel yöntemlerle belirlenmesi son yıllarda oldukça önem kazanmıştır. Sitotoksisitenin veya hücre canlılığının belirlenmesi için birçok yöntem bulunmaktadır. Bu yöntemler (i) boyama yöntemleri; (ii) kolorimetrik yöntemler; (iii) florometrik yöntemler; (iv) luminometrik yöntemler; (v) apoptozun belirlenmesi için kullanılan farklı teknikler ve (vi) otofajinin belirlenmesi için kullanılan farklı teknikler olarak sınıflandırılabilir. Bu yöntemlerin hangisinin en uygun yöntem olduğu araştırıcı tarafından tüm bilimsel veriler kullanılarak değerlendirilmelidir. Bu değerlendirme yapılırken test maddesinin fiziksel ve kimyasal özellikleri, maddenin hangi mekanizma ile hücre ölümüne yol açtığı, yönteminin özgünlüğü ve hassasiyeti dikkate alınmalıdır. Bu şekilde elde edilen sonucun güvenirliliği ve doğruluğu konusunda emin olunmalıdır. Bu derlemede, günümüzde in vitro olarak sitotoksisitenin belirlenmesinde sıklıkla kullanılan güncel yöntemler ayrıntılı olarak anlatılmış ve bu yöntemlerin üstünlük ve dezavantajlarından derlenmiştir.

Keywords

Sitotoksisite, hücre canlılığı

Project Number

---

References

• 1. Fawthrop DJ, Boobis AR, Davies DS. Fawthrop DJ: Mechanisms of cell death. Arch Toxicol 1991, 65(6):437-44. 2. Boobis AR, Fawthrop DJ, Davies DS. Boobis AR: Mechanisms of cell death. Trends Pharmacol Sci 1989, 10(7):275-80. 3. Galluzzi L, Vitale I, Aaronson SA, Abrams JM, Adam D, Agostinis P, Alnemri ES, Altucci L, Amelio I, Andrews DW, Annicchiarico-Petruzzelli M, Antonov AV, Arama E, Baehrecke EH, Barlev NA, Bazan NG, Bernassola F, Bertrand MJM, Bianchi K, Blagosklonny MV, Blomgren K, Borner C, Boya P, Brenner C, Campanella M, Candi E, Carmona-Gutierrez D, Cecconi F, Chan FK, Chandel NS, Cheng EH, Chipuk JE, Cidlowski JA, Ciechanover A, Cohen GM, Conrad M, Cubillos-Ruiz JR, Czabotar PE, D'Angiolella V, Dawson TM, Dawson VL, De Laurenzi V, De Maria R, Debatin KM, DeBerardinis RJ, Deshmukh M, Di Daniele N, Di Virgilio F, Dixit VM, Dixon SJ, Duckett CS, Dynlacht BD, El-Deiry WS, Elrod JW, Fimia GM, Fulda S, García-Sáez AJ, Garg AD, Garrido C, Gavathiotis E, Golstein P, Gottlieb E, Green DR, Greene LA, Gronemeyer H, Gross A, Hajnoczky G, Hardwick JM, Harris IS, Hengartner MO, Hetz C, Ichijo H, Jäättelä M, Joseph B, Jost PJ, Juin PP, Kaiser WJ, Karin M, Kaufmann T, Kepp O, Kimchi A, Kitsis RN, Klionsky DJ, Knight RA, Kumar S, Lee SW, Lemasters JJ, Levine B, Linkermann A, Lipton SA, Lockshin RA, López-Otín C, Lowe SW, Luedde T, Lugli E, MacFarlane M, Madeo F, Malewicz M, Malorni W, Manic G, Marine JC, Martin SJ, Martinou JC, Medema JP, Mehlen P, Meier P, Melino S, Miao EA, Molkentin JD, Moll UM, Muñoz-Pinedo C, Nagata S, Nuñez G, Oberst A, Oren M, Overholtzer M, Pagano M, Panaretakis T, Pasparakis M, Penninger JM, Pereira DM, Pervaiz S, Peter ME, Piacentini M, Pinton P, Prehn JHM, Puthalakath H, Rabinovich GA, Rehm M, Rizzuto R, Rodrigues CMP, Rubinsztein DC, Rudel T, Ryan KM, Sayan E, Scorrano L, Shao F, Shi Y, Silke J, Simon HU, Sistigu A, Stockwell BR, Strasser A, Szabadkai G, Tait SWG, Tang D, Tavernarakis N, Thorburn A, Tsujimoto Y, Turk B, Vanden Berghe T, Vandenabeele P, Vander Heiden MG, Villunger A, Virgin HW, Vousden KH, Vucic D, Wagner EF, Walczak H, Wallach D, Wang Y, Wells JA, Wood W, Yuan J, Zakeri Z, Zhivotovsky B, Zitvogel L, Melino G, Kroemer G: Molecular mechanisms of cell death: recommendations of the Nomenclature Committee on Cell Death 2018. Cell Death Differ 2018, 25(3):486-541.4. 4. Orrenius S, Nicotera, P, Zhivotovsky B: Cell Death Mechanisms and Their Implications in Toxicology. Toxicol Sci 2011, 119 (1): 3–19. 5. Stoddart M: Cell viability assays: introduction. Methods Mol Biol 2011;740:1-6. 6. Adan A, Kiraz Y, Baran Y: Cell Proliferation and Cytotoxicity Assays. Curr Pharm Biotechnol 2016, 17(14):1213-1221. 7. Johnson S, Nguyen V, Coder D: Assessment of cell viability. Curr Protoc Cytom 2013; Chapter 9:Unit 9.2. 8. Riss TL, Moravec RA, Niles AL, Duellman S, Benink HA, Worzella TJ, Minor L. Cell Viability Assays. 2013 May 1 [updated 2016 Jul 1]: In: Sittampalam GS, Grossman A, Brimacombe K, Arkin M, Auld D, Austin CP, Baell J, Bejcek B, Caaveiro JMM, Chung TDY, Coussens NP, Dahlin JL, Devanaryan V, Foley TL, Glicksman M, Hall MD, Haas JV, Hoare SRJ, Inglese J, Iversen PW, Kahl SD, Kales SC, Kirshner S, Lal-Nag M, Li Z, McGee J, McManus O, Riss T, Saradjian P, Trask OJ Jr., Weidner JR, Wildey MJ, Xia M, Xu X, editors. Assay Guidance Manual [Internet]. Bethesda (MD): Eli Lilly & Company and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences; 2004-. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK144065/ [Website] 9. Strober W: Trypan Blue Exclusion Test of Cell Viability. Curr Protoc Immunol 2015;111:A3.B.1-A3.B.3. 10. Strober W: Trypan blue exclusion test of cell viability. Curr Protoc Immunol. 200, Appendix 3:Appendix 3B. 11. Louis KS, Siegel AC: Cell Viability Analysis Using Trypan Blue: Manual and Automated Methods. Mammn Cell Viabil, 2011, 7-12. 12. Louis KS. Siegel AC, Levy GA: Comparison of Manual versus Automated Trypan Blue Dye Exclusion Method for Cell Counting. 2007. Available from: http://www.ibdl.ca/Application%20Notes/Application%20Note%20-%20Vi-CELL1.pdf. [Website] 13. Ralph Dougall LHJ: Conn's Biological Stains 9th ed. Williams & Wilkins; Baltimore, 1977. 692 p. 14. Bancroft J, Stevens A: The Theory and Practice of Histological Techniques (2nd ed.). Longman Group Limited, USA, 1982. 15. Weisenthal LM, Marsden JA, Dill PL, Macaluso CK: A novel dye exclusion method for testing in vitro chemosensitivity of human tumors. Cancer Res 1983, 43(2):749-757. 16. von Knebel Doeberitz M, Wentzensen N: The Cell: Basic Structure and Function. In: Bibbo M, Wilbur DC (eds), Comprehensive Cytopathology (Third Edition), 2008. Saunders/Elsevier; Philadelphia, USA. 2008. pp. 3-22. 17. Dooley MP: The use of eosin B to assess the viability and developmental potential of rat embryos. Retrospective Theses and Dissertations. Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Dissertations. Iowa State University Repository. 1988. Available from: https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=9838&context=rtd [Website] 18. Aslantürk ÖS. In Vitro Cytotoxicity and Cell Viability Assays: Principles, Advantages, and Disadvantages. In: Larramendy M, Soloneski S (eds), Genotoxicity - A Predictable Risk to Our Actual Worl, InTech, Crotia. 2018. pp. 1-17. 19. Hunger K, Mischke P, Rieper W, Raue R, Kunde K, Engel A: Azo Dyes. Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, Germany. 2005. 20. Yakupova EI, Bobyleva LG, Vikhlyantsev IM, Bobylev AG: Congo Red and amyloids: history and relationship. Biosci Rep 2019;39(1). pii: BSR20181415. 21. Yip DK, Auersperg N: The dye-exclusion test for cell viability: persistence of differential staining following fixation. In Vitro 1972, 7(5):323-329. 22. McDonald JE, Rooks DJ, McCarthy AJ. Chapter nineteen - Methods for the Isolation of Cellulose-Degrading Microorganisms. Methods in Enzymol 2012, 510, 349-374. 23. Steensma, DP: Congo Red: Out of Africa? Arch Pathol Lab Med 2001, 125 (2):250–252. 24. Al-Shabib NA, Khan JM, Malik A, Alsenaidy AM, Alsenaidy MA, Husain FM, Shamsi MB, Hidayathulla S, Khan RH. Negatively charged food additive dye "Allura Red" rapidly induces SDS-soluble amyloid fibril in beta-lactoglobulin protein. Int J Biol Macromol 2018, 107(Pt B):1706-1716. 25. Gurr E: Synthetic Dyes in Biology, Medicine And Chemistry. 2012, Academic Press, London, New York. 26. Kim SI, Kim HJ, Lee HJ, Lee K, Hong D, Lim H, Cho K, Jung N, Yi YW: Application of a non-hazardous vital dye for cell counting with automated cell counters. Anal Biochem 2016, 492:8-12. 27. Franke JD, Braverman AL, Cunningham AM, Eberhard EE, Perry GA: Erythrosin B: a versatile colorimetric and fluorescent vital dye for bacteria. Biotechniques 2020, 68(1):7-13. 28. Fuentes M. Home /Viability dyes: Trypan blue vs Erythrosine B. Available from: https://www.hemocytometer.org/viability-dyes-trypan-blue-vs-erythrosin-b/ [Website] 29. Krause AW, Carley WW, Webb WW: Fluorescent erythrosin B is preferable to trypan blue as a vital exclusion dye for mammalian cells in monolayer culture. J Histochem Cytochem 1984, 32(10):1084-1090. 30. Zuang V: The neutral red release assay: a review. Altern Lab Anim 2001, 29:575-599. 31. Repetto G, del Peso A, Zurita JL: Neutral red uptake assay for the estimation of cell viability/cytotoxicity. Nat Protoc 2008, 3(7):1125-1131. 32. Ates G, Vanhaecke T, Rogiers V, Rodrigues RM: Assaying Cellular Viability Using the Neutral Red Uptake Assay. Methods Mol Biol 2017, 1601:19-26. 33. The National Toxicology Program (NTP) Interagency Center for the Evaluation of Alternative Toxicological Methods (NICEATM). Test Method Protocol for the NHK Neutral Red Uptake Cytotoxicity Assay. Phase III - Validation Study: November 4, 2003. A Test for Basal Cytotoxicity for an In Vitro Validation Study Phase III. Available from: https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/iccvam/methods/acutetox/invidocs/phiiiprot/nhkphiii.pdf [Website] 34. G-Biosciences. Viability Assays: Different Types and Their Use in Cell Death Research. Available from: https://info.gbiosciences.com/blog/how-and-when-to-use-viability-assays. [Website] 35. OECD TG GUIDELINE 432. In Vitro 3T3 NRU Phototoxicity Test. 2018. Available from: http://www.oecd.org/env/ehs/testing/TG432-TC-4dec-clean.pdf [Website] 36. Erdely H, Sanders P: 5. Residues in food and their evaluations - Conditions of use. Gentian violet. Food and Agriculture Organization. 2017. Available from: http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/vetdrug/docs/15-2013-gentian-violet.pdf [Website] 37. Feoktistova M, Geserick P, Leverkus M: Crystal Violet Assay for Determining Viability of Cultured Cells. Cold Spring Harb Protoc 2016, 2016(4):pdb.prot087379. 38. Berry JM, Huebner E, Butler M: The crystal violet nuclei staining technique leads to anomalous results in monitoring mammalian cell cultures. Cytotechnology 1996, 21(1):73-80. 39. Silva EJNL, Rollemberg CB, de Souza Coutinho-Filho T, Krebs RL, Zaia AA: A multiparametric assay to compare the cytotoxicity of different storage media for avulsed teeth. Braz. J Oral Sci 2013, 12(2):90-94. 40. Mosmann T: Rapid colorimetric assay for cellular growth and survival: application to proliferation and cytotoxicity assays. J Immunol Methods 1983, 65:55–63. 41. Kumar P, Nagarajan A, Uchil PD: Analysis of Cell Viability by the MTT Assay. Cold Spring Harb Protoc 2018, 2018(6). 42. OECD TG 439. In Vitro Skin Irritation: Reconstructed Human Epidermis Test Method. 28 July 2015. Available from: http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/download/9715291e.pdf?expires=1482489462&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=BBD9677ED6B5DAFABBB00380CC70332D. [Website] 43. OECD TG 492: Reconstructed human Cornea-like Epithelium (RhCE) test method for identifying chemicals not requiring classification and labelling for eye irritation or serious eye damage. 28 July 2015. Available from: http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/download/9715211e.pdf?expires=1482490212&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=5A6054E03ECCBF6C51DFAF39D9E807D1. [Website] 44. Lindl T, Lewandowski B, Schreyögg S, Stäudte A: An evaluation of the in vitro cytotoxicities of 50 chemicals by using an electrical current exclusion method versus the neutral red uptake and MTT assays. Altern Lab Anim 2005, 33(6):591-601. 45. Stepanenko AA, Dmitrenko VV: Pitfalls of the MTT assay: Direct and off-target effects of inhibitors can result in over/underestimation of cell viability. Gene 2015, 574(2):193-203. 46. Creative Proteomics. MTS Cell Proliferation Assay. Available from: https://www.creative-proteomics.com/services/mts-cell-proliferation-assay.htm [Website] 47. Protocol Guide: MTT Assay for Cell Viability and Proliferation. Merck. 2020. Available from: https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/technical-documents/protocols/biology/roche/cell-proliferation-kit-i-mtt.html [Website] 48. Wang P, Henning SM, Heber D: Limitations of MTT and MTS-based assays for measurement of antiproliferative activity of green tea polyphenols. PLoS One 2010, 5(4):e10202. 49. Merck. Protocol Guide: XTT Assay for Cell Viability and Proliferation. Available from: https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/technical-documents/protocols/biology/roche/cell-proliferation-kit-xtt-assay.html [Website] 50. Merck. Protocol Guide: WST-1 Assay for Cell Proliferation and Viability. Available from: https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/technical-documents/protocols/biology/roche/cell-proliferation-reagent-wst-1.html [Website] 51. Kuhn DM, Balkis M, Chandra J, Mukherjee PK, Ghannoum MA. Uses and limitations of the XTT assay in studies of Candida growth and metabolism. J Clin Microbiol 2003, 41(1):506-508. 52. da Costa AO, de Assis MC, Marques Ede A, Plotkowski MC. Comparative analysis of three methods to assess viability of mammalian cells in culture. Biocell 1999, 23(1):65-72. 53. kehan P, Storeng R, Scudiero D, Monks A, McMahon J, Vistica D, Warren JT, Bokesch H, Kenney S, Boyd MR: New colorimetric cytotoxicity assay for anticancer-drug screening. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1990, 82(13):1107–1112. 54. van Tonder A, Joubert AM, Cromarty AD: Limitations of the 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyl-2H-tetrazolium bromide (MTT) assay when compared to three commonly used cell enumeration assays. BMC Res Notes 2015, 8:47. 55. Orellana EA, Kasinski AL: Sulforhodamine B (SRB) Assay in Cell Culture to Investigate Cell Proliferation. Bio Protoc 2016, 6(21). pii: e1984. 56. Vichai V, Kirtikara K: Sulforhodamine B colorimetric assay for cytoxicity screening. Nature Protocol 12006, (3):1112-1116. 57. Vajrabhaya L, Korsuwannawong S: Cytotoxicity evaluation of a Thai herb using tetrazolium (MTT) and sulforhodamine B (SRB) assays. J Anal Sci Technol 2018, 9, 15. 58. Kumar P, Nagarajan A, Uchil PD: Analysis of Cell Viability by the Lactate Dehydrogenase Assay. Cold Spring Harb Protoc 2018, 2018(6). 59. Fotakis G, Timbrell JA: In vitro cytotoxicity assays: comparison of LDH, neutral red, MTT and protein assay in hepatoma cell lines following exposure to cadmium chloride. Toxicol Lett 2006, 160(2):171-177. 60. Han X, Gelein R, Corson N, Wade-Mercer P, Jiang J, Biswas P, Finkelstein JN, Elder A, Oberdörster G: Validation of an LDH assay for assessing nanoparticle toxicity. Toxicology 2011, 287(1-3):99-104. 61. 'Brien J, Wilson I, Orton T, Pognan F: Investigation of the Alamar Blue (resazurin) fluorescent dye for the assessment of mammalian cell cytotoxicity Eur. J. Biochem 2000, 267(17):5421-5426. 62. Eilenberger C, Kratz SRA, Rothbauer M, Ehmoser EK, Ertl P, Küpcü S: Optimized alamarBlue assay protocol for drug dose-response determination of 3D tumor spheroids. MethodsX 2018, 5:781-787. 63. Vega-Avila E, Pugsley MK: An overview of colorimetric assay methods used to assess survival or proliferation of mammalian cells. Proc West Pharmacol Soc 2011, 54:10-14. 64. Rampersad SN: Multiple applications of Alamar Blue as an indicator of metabolic function and cellular health in cell viability bioassays. Sensors (Basel) 2012, 12(9):12347-12360. 65. Eilenberger C, Kratz SRA, Rothbauer M, Ehmoser EK, Ertl P, Küpcü S. Optimized alamarBlue assay protocol for drug dose-response determination of 3D tumor spheroids. MethodsX. 2018;5:781–787. 66. Schreer A, Tinson C, Sherry JP, Schirmer K: Application of Alamarblue/5-carboxyfluorescein diacetate acetoxymethyl ester as a noninvasive cell viability assay in primary hepatocytes from rainbow trout. Anal Biochem 2005, 344(1):76-85. 67. Bopp SK, Lettieri T: Comparison of four different colorimetric and fluorometric cytotoxicity assays in a zebrafish liver cell line. BMC Pharmacol 2008, 8:8. 68. Schirmer K. Application of fluorescent indicator dyes to monitor hepatocyte viability in studies on gene expression. Junior Research Group - Molecular Animal Cell Toxicology UFZ Centre for Environmental Research. Available from: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.520.9740&rep=rep1&type=pdf [Website] 69. Gorokhova E, Mattsson L, Sundström AM: A comparison of TO-PRO-1 iodide and 5-CFDA-AM staining methods for assessing viability of planktonic algae with epifluorescence microscopy. J Microbiol Methods 2012, 89(3):216-221. 70. Corey MJ, Kinders RJ, Brown LG, Vessella RL: A very sensitive coupled luminescent assay for cytotoxicity and complement-mediated lysis. J Immunol Methods 1997, 207(1):43-51. 71. Maehara Y, Anai H, Tamada R, Sugimachi K: The ATP assay is more sensitive than the succinate-dehydrogenase inhibition test for predicting cell viability. Eur J Cancer Clinical Oncol 1987, 23:273-276. 72. Mueller H, Kassack MU, Wiese M: Comparison of the usefulness of the MTT, ATP and calcein assays to predict the potency of cytotoxic agents in various human cancer cell lines. J Biomol Screening 2004, 9:506-515. 73. Andreotti PE, Cree IA, Kurbacher CM, Hartmann DM, Linder D, Harel G, Gleiberman I, Caruso PA, Ricks SH, Untch M, Sartori C, Bruckner HW: Chemosensitivity testing of human tumors using a microplate adenosine triphosphate luminescence assay: Clinical correlation for cisplatin resistance of ovarian cancer. Cancer Res 1995, 55:5276-5282. 74. Fan F, Wood KV: Bioluminescent assays for high-throughput screening. Assay Drug Dev Technol 2007, 5(1):127-136. 75. Duellman SJ, Zhou W, Meisenheimer P, Vidugiris G, Cali JJ, Gautam P, Wennerberg K, Vidugiriene J: Bioluminescent, nonlytic, real-time cell viability assay and use in inhibitor screening. Assay Drug Dev Technol 2015, 13(8):456-465. 76. Schäfer H, Schäfer A, Kiderlen AF, Masihi KN, Burger R: A highly sensitive cytotoxicity assay based on the release of reporter enzymes, from stably transfected cell lines. J Immunol Methods. 1997, 204(1):89-98. 77. Jondeau A, Dahbi L, Bani-Estivals MH, Chagnon MC: Evaluation of the sensitivity of three sublethal cytotoxicity assays in human HepG2 cell line using water contaminants. Toxicology. 2006, 226(2-3):218-228. 78. Ward TH, Cummings J, Dean E, Greystoke A, Hou JM, Backen A, Ranson M, Dive C: Biomarkers of apoptosis. Br J Cancer 2008, 99(6):841-846. 79. Holdenrieder S, Stieber P: Apoptotic markers in cancer. Clin Biochem 2004, 37(7):605-617. 80. Zarcone D, Tilden AB, Cloud G, Friedman HM, Landay A, Grossi CE: Flow cytometry evaluation of cell-mediated cytotoxicity. J Immunol Methods 1986, 94(1-2):247-255. 81. Sarkar FH, Li Y: Markers of apoptosis. Methods Mol Med 2006, 120:147-160. 82. Demchenko AP: The change of cellular membranes on apoptosis: fluorescence detection. Exp Oncol 2012, 34(3):263-268. 83. Krysko DV, Vanden Berghe T, D'Herde K, Vandenabeele P: Apoptosis and necrosis: detection, discrimination and phagocytosis. Methods. 2008, 44(3):205-221. 84. Taatjes DJ, Sobel BE, Budd RC: Morphological and cytochemical determination of cell death by apoptosis. Histochem Cell Biol 2008, 129(1):33-43. 85. Maurya SK, Tewari M, Sharma B, Shukla HS: Expression of procaspase 3 and activated caspase 3 and its relevance in hormone-responsive gallbladder carcinoma chemotherapy. Korean J Intern Med 2013, 28(5):573-578. 86. Aziz G, Akselsen ØW, Hansen TV, Paulsen RE: Procaspase-activating compound 1 induces a caspase-3-dependent cell death in cerebellar granule neurons. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 2010, 247(3):238-242. 87. Archana M; Bastian, Yogesh TL, Kumaraswamy KL. Various methods available for detection of apoptotic cells--a review. Indian J Cancer 2013, 50(3):274-283. 88. Tuchin VV, Tárnok A, Zharov VP: In vivo flow cytometry: a horizon of opportunities. Cytometry A 2011, 79(10):737-745. 89. Axe EL, Walker SA, Manifava M, Chandra P, Roderick HL, Habermann A, Griffiths G, Ktistakis NT: Autophagosome formation from membrane compartments enriched in phosphatidylinositol 3-phosphate and dynamically connected to the endoplasmic reticulum. J Cell Biol 2008, 182(4):685-701. 90. Biazik J, Ylä-Anttila P, Vihinen H, Jokitalo E, Eskelinen EL: Ultrastructural relationship of the phagophore with surrounding organelles. Autophagy 2015, 11(3):439-451. 91. Chen Y, Yu L: Autophagic lysosome reformation. Exp Cell Res 2013, 319(2):142-146.