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

Autophagy and the Integrated Stress Response

The posttranslational modification with ubiquitin, a process referred to as ubiquitylation, controls almost every process in cells. Ubiquitin can be attached to substrate proteins as a single moiety or in the form of polymeric chains in which successive ubiquitin molecules are connected through specific isopeptide bonds. Reminiscent of a code, the various ubiquitin modifications adopt distinct conformations and lead to different outcomes in cells. Here, we discuss the structure, assembly, and function of this ubiquitin code.

The Ubiquitin Code

Mitophagy is the selective elimination of mitochondria through autophagy Recent studies have uncovered the molecular mechanisms mediating mitophagy in yeast and mammalian cells and have revealed that the dysregulation of one of these mechanisms — the PINK1–parkin-mediated signalling pathway — may contribute to Parkinson's disease

/pdf/mechanisms-of-mitophagy-evi78v27hj.pdf

Mechanisms of mitophagy

Parkinson's disease is the most common neurodegenerative movement disorder. Mutations in PINK1 and PARKIN are the most frequent causes of recessive Parkinson's disease. However, their molecular contribution to pathogenesis remains unclear. Here, we reveal important mechanistic steps of a PINK1/Parkin-directed pathway linking mitochondrial damage, ubiquitylation and autophagy in non-neuronal and neuronal cells. PINK1 kinase activity and its mitochondrial localization sequence are prerequisites to induce translocation of the E3 ligase Parkin to depolarized mitochondria. Subsequently, Parkin mediates the formation of two distinct poly-ubiquitin chains, linked through Lys 63 and Lys 27. In addition, the autophagic adaptor p62/SQSTM1 is recruited to mitochondrial clusters and is essential for the clearance of mitochondria. Strikingly, we identified VDAC1 (voltage-dependent anion channel 1) as a target for Parkin-mediated Lys 27 poly-ubiquitylation and mitophagy. Moreover, pathogenic Parkin mutations interfere with distinct steps of mitochondrial translocation, ubiquitylation and/or final clearance through mitophagy. Thus, our data provide functional links between PINK1, Parkin and the selective autophagy of mitochondria, which is implicated in the pathogenesis of Parkinson's disease.

PINK1/Parkin-mediated mitophagy is dependent on VDAC1 and p62/SQSTM1

Mitochondrial dysfunction is an early sign of many neurodegenerative diseases. Very recently, two Parkinson disease (PD) associated genes, PINK1 and Parkin, were shown to mediate the degradation of damaged mitochondria via selective autophagy (mitophagy). PINK1 kinase activity is needed for prompt and efficient Parkin recruitment to impaired mitochondria. PD-associated Parkin mutations interfere with the process of mitophagy at distinct steps. Here we show that whole mitochondria are turned over via macroautophagy. Moreover, disease-associated PINK1 mutations also compromise the selective degradation of depolarized mitochondria. This may be due to the decreased physical binding activity of PD-linked PINK1 mutations to Parkin. Thus, PINK1 mutations abrogate autophagy of impaired mitochondria upstream of Parkin. In addition to compromised PINK1 kinase activity, reduced binding of PINK1 to Parkin leads to failure in Parkin mitochondrial translocation, resulting in the accumulation of damaged mitochondria, wh...

Diana Skujat

Papers

PINK1/Parkin-mediated mitophagy is dependent on VDAC1 and p62/SQSTM1

The PINK1/Parkin-mediated mitophagy is compromised by PD-associated mutations.