Your privacy, your choice

We use essential cookies to make sure the site can function. We also use optional cookies for advertising, personalisation of content, usage analysis, and social media.

By accepting optional cookies, you consent to the processing of your personal data - including transfers to third parties. Some third parties are outside of the European Economic Area, with varying standards of data protection.

See our privacy policy for more information on the use of your personal data.

for further information and to change your choices.

Skip to main content
Fig. 5 | Cell Communication and Signaling

Fig. 5

From: Amino acid response by Halofuginone in Cancer cells triggers autophagy through proteasome degradation of mTOR

Fig. 5

Excess of proline rescues the induction of AAR and of autophagy by halofuginone. a WRO cells were treated with 100 nM halofuginone (HF) in standard medium supplemented or not with 2 mM proline (PRO) as indicated. A representative immunoblotting of P-eIF2α versus total eIF2α (marker of AAR) and of LC3B (marker of autophagy) is shown. Densitometry analysis of the protein bands was performed and the LC3B-II/ I band density ratios are shown. A similar pattern of protein expression was observed in two other separate experiments. b WRO cells were plated on coverslips and treated as in (a). After 8 h the cells were fixed, processed for LC3 (green) and LAMP-1 (red) immunostaining and imaged by fluorescence microscopy. Nuclei were stained with DAPI. Scale bars: 10 μm. c Bars indicate the average yellow fluorescence intensity density of immunofluorescences shown in (b). Data are from five different images for each condition. Error bars: standard deviation. Statistically significant differences between fluorescence intensity densities after to before HF, or after to before PRO in the presence of HF are shown (*, p ≤ 0.05)

Back to article page