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

The search for understanding the interactions of nanosized materials with living organisms is leading to the rapid development of key applications, including improved drug delivery by targeting nanoparticles, and resolution of the potential threat of nanotechnological devices to organisms and the environment. Unless they are specifically designed to avoid it, nanoparticles in contact with biological fluids are rapidly covered by a selected group of biomolecules to form a corona that interacts with biological systems. Here we review the basic concept of the nanoparticle corona and its structure and composition, and highlight how the properties of the corona may be linked to its biological impacts. We conclude with a critical assessment of the key problems that need to be resolved in the near future.

/pdf/biomolecular-coronas-provide-the-biological-identity-of-3m15njjzti.pdf

Biomolecular coronas provide the biological identity of nanosized materials

Many types of nanoparticles (NPs) are tested for use in medical products, particularly in imaging and gene and drug delivery. For these applications, cellular uptake is usually a prerequisite and is governed in addition to size by surface characteristics such as hydrophobicity and charge. Although positive charge appears to improve the efficacy of imaging, gene transfer, and drug delivery, a higher cytotoxicity of such constructs has been reported. This review summarizes findings on the role of surface charge on cytotoxicity in general, action on specific cellular targets, modes of toxic action, cellular uptake, and intracellular localization of NPs. Effects of serum and intercell type differences are addressed. Cationic NPs cause more pronounced disruption of plasma-membrane integrity, stronger mitochondrial and lysosomal damage, and a higher number of autophagosomes than anionic NPs. In general, nonphagocytic cells ingest cationic NPs to a higher extent, but charge density and hydrophobicity are equally important; phagocytic cells preferentially take up anionic NPs. Cells do not use different uptake routes for cationic and anionic NPs, but high uptake rates are usually linked to greater biological effects. The different uptake preferences of phagocytic and nonphagocytic cells for cationic and anionic NPs may influence the efficacy and selectivity of NPs for drug delivery and imaging.

/pdf/the-role-of-surface-charge-in-cellular-uptake-and-22qmbuegnh.pdf

The role of surface charge in cellular uptake and cytotoxicity of medical nanoparticles.

In biological fluids, proteins bind to the surface of nanoparticles to form a coating known as the protein corona, which can critically affect the interaction of the nanoparticles with living systems. As physiological systems are highly dynamic, it is important to obtain a time-resolved knowledge of protein-corona formation, development and biological relevancy. Here we show that label-free snapshot proteomics can be used to obtain quantitative time-resolved profiles of human plasma coronas formed on silica and polystyrene nanoparticles of various size and surface functionalization. Complex time- and nanoparticle-specific coronas, which comprise almost 300 different proteins, were found to form rapidly (<0.5 minutes) and, over time, to change significantly in terms of the amount of bound protein, but not in composition. Rapid corona formation is found to affect haemolysis, thrombocyte activation, nanoparticle uptake and endothelial cell death at an early exposure time.

Rapid formation of plasma protein corona critically affects nanoparticle pathophysiology

Nanoparticle interaction with plasma proteins as it relates to particle biodistribution, biocompatibility and therapeutic efficacy.

Induction of Autophagy in Porcine Kidney Cells by Quantum Dots: A Common Cellular Response to Nanomaterials?

Synergistic combination therapy with nanoliposomal C6-ceramide and vinblastine is associated with autophagy dysfunction in hepatocarcinoma and colorectal cancer models.

Lysosomal dysfunction is a recognized toxic mechanism for xenobiotics, which can result in various pathological states. There is concern that nanoparticles, in particular, may cause lysosomal pathologies, since they are likely to accumulate within lysosomes. Dysregulation of the autophagy-lysosomal degradation pathway is an example of lysosomal dysfunction associated with exposure to some nanomaterials. Here, we present a method to monitor autophagy by measurement the autophagosome marker LC3-II, a phosphatidylethanolamine (PE)-conjugated form of microtubule-associated protein 1 light chain 3-I (MAP LC3-I). As other conditions could potentially result in LC3-II expression, treatment-related changes in expression should be further evaluated by morphological assessment, using techniques such as electron microscopy, to confirm autophagosome involvement.

Christopher B. McLeland

Papers

Nanoparticle interaction with plasma proteins as it relates to particle biodistribution, biocompatibility and therapeutic efficacy.

Induction of Autophagy in Porcine Kidney Cells by Quantum Dots: A Common Cellular Response to Nanomaterials?

Synergistic combination therapy with nanoliposomal C6-ceramide and vinblastine is associated with autophagy dysfunction in hepatocarcinoma and colorectal cancer models.

Autophagy monitoring assay: qualitative analysis of MAP LC3-I to II conversion by immunoblot.