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

Methods in Mammalian Autophagy Research

Loss-of-function mutations in Park2, the gene coding for the ubiquitin ligase Parkin, are a significant cause of early onset Parkinson's disease. Although the role of Parkin in neuron maintenance is unknown, recent work has linked Parkin to the regulation of mitochondria. Its loss is associated with swollen mitochondria and muscle degeneration in Drosophila melanogaster, as well as mitochondrial dysfunction and increased susceptibility to mitochondrial toxins in other species. Here, we show that Parkin is selectively recruited to dysfunctional mitochondria with low membrane potential in mammalian cells. After recruitment, Parkin mediates the engulfment of mitochondria by autophagosomes and the selective elimination of impaired mitochondria. These results show that Parkin promotes autophagy of damaged mitochondria and implicate a failure to eliminate dysfunctional mitochondria in the pathogenesis of Parkinson's disease.

/pdf/parkin-is-recruited-selectively-to-impaired-mitochondria-and-53rmqvs069.pdf

Parkin is recruited selectively to impaired mitochondria and promotes their 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

Autophagy has been implicated in a range of disorders and hence is of major interest. However, imaging autophagy in real time has been hampered by lack of suitable markers. We have compared the pot...

The dynamics of autophagy visualized in live cells: from autophagosome formation to fusion with endo/lysosomes.

Significance The suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN), the master circadian clock of the mammalian brain, coordinates cellular clocks across the organism to regulate daily rhythms of physiology and behavior. SCN timekeeping pivots around transcriptional/translational feedback loops whereby PERIOD (PER) and CRYPTOCHROME (CRY) proteins associate and enter the nucleus to inhibit their own expression. The individual and interactive behaviors of PER and CRY and the mechanisms that regulate them are poorly understood. We combined fluorescence imaging of endogenous PER2 and viral vector–expressed CRY in SCN slices and show how CRYs, acting via their C terminus, control nuclear localization and mobility of PER2 to dose-dependently initiate SCN timekeeping and control its period. Our results reveal PER and CRY interactions central to the SCN clockwork. The ∼20,000 cells of the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN), the master circadian clock of the mammalian brain, coordinate subordinate cellular clocks across the organism, driving adaptive daily rhythms of physiology and behavior. The canonical model for SCN timekeeping pivots around transcriptional/translational feedback loops (TTFL) whereby PERIOD (PER) and CRYPTOCHROME (CRY) clock proteins associate and translocate to the nucleus to inhibit their own expression. The fundamental individual and interactive behaviors of PER and CRY in the SCN cellular environment and the mechanisms that regulate them are poorly understood. We therefore used confocal imaging to explore the behavior of endogenous PER2 in the SCN of PER2::Venus reporter mice, transduced with viral vectors expressing various forms of CRY1 and CRY2. In contrast to nuclear localization in wild-type SCN, in the absence of CRY proteins, PER2 was predominantly cytoplasmic and more mobile, as measured by fluorescence recovery after photobleaching. Virally expressed CRY1 or CRY2 relocalized PER2 to the nucleus, initiated SCN circadian rhythms, and determined their period. We used translational switching to control CRY1 cellular abundance and found that low levels of CRY1 resulted in minimal relocalization of PER2, but yet, remarkably, were sufficient to initiate and maintain circadian rhythmicity. Importantly, the C-terminal tail was necessary for CRY1 to localize PER2 to the nucleus and to initiate SCN rhythms. In CRY1-null SCN, CRY1Δtail opposed PER2 nuclear localization and correspondingly shortened SCN period. Through manipulation of CRY proteins, we have obtained insights into the spatiotemporal behaviors of PER and CRY sitting at the heart of the TTFL molecular mechanism.

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/119/4/e2113845119.full.pdf

Dhevahi Niranjan

Papers

The dynamics of autophagy visualized in live cells: from autophagosome formation to fusion with endo/lysosomes.

Cryptochrome proteins regulate the circadian intracellular behavior and localization of PER2 in mouse suprachiasmatic nucleus neurons

Dengue NS1 antigen detection using photoluminescence of solution phase biotylinated anti-NS1 antibody conjugated ZnO quantum dots