In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes.

For example, a key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process versus those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process including the amount and rate of cargo sequestered and degraded). In particular, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation must be differentiated from stimuli that increase autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. It is worth emphasizing here that lysosomal digestion is a stage of autophagy and evaluating its competence is a crucial part of the evaluation of autophagic flux, or complete autophagy.

Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. Along these lines, because of the potential for pleiotropic effects due to blocking autophagy through genetic manipulation, it is imperative to target by gene knockout or RNA interference more than one autophagy-related protein. In addition, some individual Atg proteins, or groups of proteins, are involved in other cellular pathways implying that not all Atg proteins can be used as a specific marker for an autophagic process. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field.

/pdf/guidelines-for-the-use-and-interpretation-of-assays-for-ijf2t30pbq.pdf

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition)

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field.

/pdf/guidelines-for-the-use-and-interpretation-of-assays-for-28d1pi1jvo.pdf

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

Research in autophagy continues to accelerate,(1) and as a result many new scientists are entering the field Accordingly, it is important to establish a standard set of criteria for monitoring macroautophagy in different organisms Recent reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose(2,3) There are many useful and convenient methods that can be used to monitor macroautophagy in yeast, but relatively few in other model systems, and there is much confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure macroautophagy in higher eukaryotes A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers of autophagosomes versus those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway; thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from fully functional autophagy that includes delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi) Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of the methods that can be used by investigators who are attempting to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as by reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that investigate these processes This set of guidelines is not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to verify an autophagic response

/pdf/guidelines-for-the-use-and-interpretation-of-assays-for-4sx3t3he7d.pdf

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy in higher eukaryotes

http://www.biotek.lu.se/fileadmin/bioteknik/Utbildning/Kurser/KKKA05/ProgressETOHprocess.pdf

Progress in bioethanol processing

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.

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)

Ssu1p, a plasma membrane protein involved in sulphite metabolism in Saccharomyces cerevisiae, was found to be required for efficient sulphite efflux. An SSU1 null mutant accumulated significantly more sulphite than wild-type, whereas cells expressing multicopy SSU1 accumulated significantly less. Cells expressing FZF1-4, a dominant allele of a transcriptional activator of SSU1 that confers sulphite resistance, also accumulated less sulphite. beta-galactosidase activity in the FZF1-4 strain carrying an SSU1::lacZ fusion was found to be 8.5-fold higher than in a strain carrying wild-type FZF1, confirming that the heightened resistance was correlated with hyperactivation of SSU1. Multicopy SSU1 was also found to increase the sulphite resistance of a number of unrelated sulphite-sensitive strains by a factor of 3- to 8-fold. Rates of efflux of free sulphite from cells expressing multicopy SSU1 or FZF1-4 were significantly greater than that from wild-type or from a SSU1 null mutant. Rates of efflux of bound sulphite from wild-type, a SSU1 null mutant, a FZF1-4 mutant, or cells expressing multicopy SSU1 were not significantly different, suggesting that Ssu1p specifically mediates efflux of the free form of sulphite.

SSU1 mediates sulphite efflux in Saccharomyces cerevisiae.

A general procedure is described for determining the chromosomal constitution of industrial strains of Saccharomyces cerevisiae based on analysis of segregation frequencies for input markers among random spore progeny of industrial-laboratory strain hybrids. The multiply auxotrophic haploid testers used carried a dominant erythromycin-resistance marker, allowing hybrids to be selected in mass matings with spores produced by the wild-type industrial strains. Analysis of a number of independent crosses between the haploid testers and an unselected population of spores of each wine strain distinguished between disomic, trisomic and tetrasomic chromosomal complements in the parents. Possible explanations for a significant class of aberrant segregation frequencies are discussed. Results of the analysis indicate that UCD Enology 522 (Montrachet) is diploid and possibly trisomic for chromosome VII; 522X is diploid; UCD Enology 505 (California Champagne) is disomic for chromosome XVI, trisomic for chromosomes I, II, III, VI, VIII, IX, X, XII, XV, tetrasomic for chromosomes IV, XI, XIII, XIV and either trisomic or tetrasomic for chromosomes V and VII; and that UCD Enology 595 (Pasteur Champagne) is disomic for chromosomes I, II, III, IX, XVI, trisomic for chromosomes IV, VI, X, XII, XIV, XV, tetrasomic for chromosomes V, VIII, XI, XIII and either disomic or tetrasomic for chromosome VII.

The chromosomal constitution of wine strains of Saccharomyces cerevisiae

Lactic acid-producing bacteria prevent carcinogen-induced preneoplastic lesions and tumors in rat colon. Because the mechanisms responsible for these protective effects are unknown, two strains of lactic acid bacteria, Lactobacillus delbrueckii ssp. bulgaricus 191R and Streptococcus salivarius ssp. thermophilus CH3, that are used to produce yogurt, were investigated in vitro and in vivo to elucidate their potential to deactivate carcinogens. Using the "Comet assay" to detect genetic damage, we found that L. bulgaricus 191R applied orally to rats could prevent 1, 2-dimethylhydrazine-induced DNA breaks in the colon in vivo, whereas St. thermophilus CH3 were not effective. However, in vitro, both strains prevented DNA damage induced by N-methyl-N'-nitro-N-nitrosoguanidine (MNNG) in isolated primary rat colon cells. Extracts prepared from milk fermented with St. thermophilus CH3 were as efficient in deactivating MNNG as was L-cysteine. Isolated metabolites arising from bacteria during fermentation in the colon or in milk [L(+) lactate, D(-) lactate, palmitic acid and isopalmitic acid] were not effective. We postulate that thiol-containing breakdown products of proteins, via catalysis by bacterial proteases, could be one mechanism by which MNNG or other carcinogens are deactivated in the gut lumen resulting in reduced damage to colonic mucosal cells.

/pdf/bacteria-used-for-the-production-of-yogurt-inactivate-2fl83pkk99.pdf

Bacteria Used for the Production of Yogurt Inactivate Carcinogens and Prevent DNA Damage in the Colon of Rats

Sardinian wine strains of Saccharomyces cerevisiae used to make sherry-like wines form a biofilm at the air-liquid interface at the end of ethanolic fermentation, when grape sugar is depleted and further growth becomes dependent on access to oxygen. Here, we show that FLO11, which encodes a hydrophobic cell wall glycoprotein, is required for the air-liquid interfacial biofilm and that biofilm cells have a buoyant density greater than the suspending medium. We propose a model for biofilm formation based on an increase in cell surface hydrophobicity occurring at the diauxic shift. This increase leads to formation of multicellular aggregates that effectively entrap carbon dioxide, providing buoyancy. A visible biofilm appears when a sufficient number of hydrophobic cell aggregates are carried to and grow on the liquid surface.

FLO11-Based Model for Air-Liquid Interfacial Biofilm Formation by Saccharomyces cerevisiae

The Saccharomyces cerevisiae SSU1 gene was isolated based on its ability to complement a mutation causing sensitivity to sulfite, a methionine intermediate. SSU1 encodes a deduced protein of 458 amino acids containing 9 or 10 membrane-spanning domains but has no significant similarity to other proteins in public databases. An Ssu1p-GEP fusion protein was localized to the plasma membrane. Multicopy suppression analysis, undertaken to explore relationships among genes previously implicated in sulfite metabolism, suggests a regulatory pathway in which SSU1 acts downstream of FZF1 and SSU3, which in turn act downstream of GRR1.

Alan T. Bakalinsky

Papers

SSU1 mediates sulphite efflux in Saccharomyces cerevisiae.

The chromosomal constitution of wine strains of Saccharomyces cerevisiae

Bacteria Used for the Production of Yogurt Inactivate Carcinogens and Prevent DNA Damage in the Colon of Rats

FLO11-Based Model for Air-Liquid Interfacial Biofilm Formation by Saccharomyces cerevisiae

SSU1 encodes a plasma membrane protein with a central role in a network of proteins conferring sulfite tolerance in Saccharomyces cerevisiae.