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)

Circular RNA and its mechanisms in disease: From the bench to the clinic.

Most genetic information is expressed as, and transacted by, proteins. Yet, less than 2% of the human genome actually codes for proteins, prompting a search for functions for the other 98% of the genome, once considered to be mostly “junk DNA.” Transcription is pervasive, however, and high-throughput sequencing has identified tens of thousands of distinct RNAs generated from the non—protein—coding portion of the genome ( 1 ). These so-called noncoding RNAs vary in length, but like protein-coding RNAs, appear to be linear molecules with 5′ and 3′ termini, reflecting the defined start and end points of RNA polymerase on the DNA template. But do all RNAs have to be linear?

A Circuitous Route to Noncoding RNA

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.

Guidelines for the use and interpretatoin of assays for monitoring autophagy

Chemotherapy failure is the major cause of recurrence and poor prognosis in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients. The role of the differentially expressed lncRNAs in 5-Fluorouracil chemoresistance has not fully explained. Here, we observed lncRNA H19 was associated with the 5-Fu resistance in CRC. Quantitative analysis indicated that H19 was significantly increased in recurrent CRC patient samples. Kaplan–Meier survival analysis indicated that high H19 expression in CRC tissues was significantly associated with poor recurrent free survival. Our functional studies demonstrated that H19 promoted colorectal cells 5-Fu resistance. Mechanistically, H19 triggered autophagy via SIRT1 to induce cancer chemoresistance. Furthermore, bioinformatics analysis showed that miR-194–5p could directly bind to H19, suggesting H19 might work as a ceRNA to sponge miR-194–5p, which was confirmed by Dual-luciferase reporter assay and Immunoprecipitation assay. Extensively, our study also showed that SIRT1 is the novel direct target of miR-194–5p in CRC cells. Taken together, our study suggests that H19 mediates 5-Fu resistance in CRC via SIRT1 mediated autophagy. Our finding provides a novel mechanistic role of H19 in CRC chemoresistance, suggesting that H19 may function as a marker for prediction of chemotherapeutic response to 5-Fu.

/pdf/long-non-coding-rna-h19-confers-5-fu-resistance-in-4gip38tgsn.pdf

Long non-coding RNA H19 confers 5-Fu resistance in colorectal cancer by promoting SIRT1-mediated autophagy.

Macroautophagy/autophagy is a catabolic process that is widely found in nature. Over the past few decades, mounting evidence has indicated that noncoding RNAs, ranging from small noncoding RNAs to long noncoding RNAs (lncRNAs) and even circular RNAs (circRNAs), mediate the transcriptional and post-transcriptional regulation of autophagy-related genes by participating in autophagy regulatory networks. The differential expression of noncoding RNAs affects autophagy levels at different physiological and pathological stages, including embryonic proliferation and differentiation, cellular senescence, and even diseases such as cancer. We summarize the current knowledge regarding noncoding RNA dysregulation in autophagy and investigate the molecular regulatory mechanisms underlying noncoding RNA involvement in autophagy regulatory networks. Then, we integrate public resources to predict autophagy-related noncoding RNAs across species and discuss strategies for and the challenges of identifying autophagy-...

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/15548627.2017.1312041

Da Pang

Papers

The emergence of noncoding RNAs as Heracles in autophagy.