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)

mTORC1 is an important regulator of muscle mass but how it is modulated by oxygen and nutrients is not completely understood. We show that loss of the prolyl hydroxylase domain isoform 1 oxygen sensor in mice (PHD1KO) reduces muscle mass. PHD1KO muscles show impaired mTORC1 activation in response to leucine whereas mTORC1 activation by growth factors or eccentric contractions was preserved. The ability of PHD1 to promote mTORC1 activity is independent of its hydroxylation activity but is caused by decreased protein content of the leucyl tRNA synthetase (LRS) leucine sensor. Mechanistically, PHD1 interacts with and stabilizes LRS. This interaction is promoted during oxygen and amino acid depletion and protects LRS from degradation. Finally, elderly subjects have lower PHD1 levels and LRS activity in muscle from aged versus young human subjects. In conclusion, PHD1 ensures an optimal mTORC1 response to leucine after episodes of metabolic scarcity.

/pdf/phd1-controls-muscle-mtorc1-in-a-hydroxylation-independent-146drs5jvm.pdf

PHD1 controls muscle mTORC1 in a hydroxylation-independent manner by stabilizing leucyl tRNA synthetase.

Elucidating the signalling mechanisms by which obesity leads to impaired insulin action is critical in the development of therapeutic strategies for the treatment of diabetes. Recently, mice deficient for S6 Kinase 1 (S6K1), an effector of the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) that acts to integrate nutrient and insulin signals, were shown to be hypoinsulinaemic, glucose intolerant and have reduced β-cell mass. However, S6K1-deficient mice maintain normal glucose levels during fasting, suggesting hypersensitivity to insulin, raising the question of their metabolic fate as a function of age and diet. Here, we report that S6K1-deficient mice are protected against obesity owing to enhanced β-oxidation. However on a high fat diet, levels of glucose and free fatty acids still rise in S6K1-deficient mice, resulting in insulin receptor desensitization. Nevertheless, S6K1-deficient mice remain sensitive to insulin owing to the apparent loss of a negative feedback loop from S6K1 to insulin receptor substrate 1 (IRS1), which blunts S307 and S636/S639 phosphorylation; sites involved in insulin resistance. Moreover, wild-type mice on a high fat diet as well as K/K Ay and ob/ob (also known as Lep/Lep) micetwo genetic models of obesityhave markedly elevated S6K1 activity and, unlike S6K1-deficient mice, increased phosphorylation of IRS1 S307 and S636/S639. Thus under conditions of nutrient satiation S6K1 negatively regulates insulin signalling.

Absence of S6K1 protects against age- and diet-induced obesity while enhancing insulin sensitivity. [Erratum: 2004 Sept. 23, v. 431, no. 7007, p. 485.]

Autophagy is a catabolic process aimed at recycling cellular components and damaged organelles in response to diverse conditions of stress, such as nutrient deprivation, viral infection and genotoxic stress. A growing amount of evidence in recent years argues for oxidative stress acting as the converging point of these stimuli, with reactive oxygen species (ROS) and reactive nitrogen species (RNS) being among the main intracellular signal transducers sustaining autophagy. This review aims at providing novel insight into the regulatory pathways of autophagy in response to glucose and amino acid deprivation, as well as their tight interconnection with metabolic networks and redox homeostasis. The role of oxidative and nitrosative stress in autophagy is also discussed in the light of its being harmful for both cellular biomolecules and signal mediator through reversible posttranslational modifications of thiol-containing proteins. The redox-independent relationship between autophagy and antioxidant response, occurring through the p62/Keap1/Nrf2 pathway, is also addressed in order to provide a wide perspective upon the interconnection between autophagy and oxidative stress. Herein, we also attempt to afford an overview of the complex crosstalk between autophagy and DNA damage response (DDR), focusing on the main pathways activated upon ROS and RNS overproduction. Along these lines, the direct and indirect role of autophagy in DDR is dissected in depth.

/pdf/oxidative-stress-and-autophagy-the-clash-between-damage-and-49lnde13mj.pdf

Oxidative stress and autophagy: the clash between damage and metabolic needs

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)

https://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/pdf/S1550-4131(12)00326-9.pdf

Amber M. Wolfe

Papers

Maintenance of Metabolic Homeostasis by Sestrin2 and Sestrin3