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

Autophagy is an essential, homeostatic process by which cells break down their own components. Perhaps the most primordial function of this lysosomal degradation pathway is adaptation to nutrient deprivation. However, in complex multicellular organisms, the core molecular machinery of autophagy - the 'autophagy proteins' - orchestrates diverse aspects of cellular and organismal responses to other dangerous stimuli such as infection. Recent developments reveal a crucial role for the autophagy pathway and proteins in immunity and inflammation. They balance the beneficial and detrimental effects of immunity and inflammation, and thereby may protect against infectious, autoimmune and inflammatory diseases.

/pdf/autophagy-in-immunity-and-inflammation-4bzgpizibc.pdf

Autophagy in immunity and inflammation

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

Autophagy is the engulfment of cytosol and organelles by double-membrane vesicles termed autophagosomes. Autophagosome formation is known to require phosphatidylinositol 3-phosphate (PI(3)P) and occurs near the endoplasmic reticulum (ER), but the exact mechanisms are unknown. We show that double FYVE domain–containing protein 1, a PI(3)P-binding protein with unusual localization on ER and Golgi membranes, translocates in response to amino acid starvation to a punctate compartment partially colocalized with autophagosomal proteins. Translocation is dependent on Vps34 and beclin function. Other PI(3)P-binding probes targeted to the ER show the same starvation-induced translocation that is dependent on PI(3)P formation and recognition. Live imaging experiments show that this punctate compartment forms near Vps34-containing vesicles, is in dynamic equilibrium with the ER, and provides a membrane platform for accumulation of autophagosomal proteins, expansion of autophagosomal membranes, and emergence of fully formed autophagosomes. This PI(3)P-enriched compartment may be involved in autophagosome biogenesis. Its dynamic relationship with the ER is consistent with the idea that the ER may provide important components for autophagosome formation.

https://rupress.org/jcb/article-pdf/182/4/685/1339164/jcb_200803137.pdf

Autophagosome formation from membrane compartments enriched in phosphatidylinositol 3-phosphate and dynamically connected to the endoplasmic reticulum

Autophagy presents a topological challenge for the cell because it requires delivery of cytosolic material to the lumen of a membrane-bound compartment, the lysosome. This is solved in an ingenious way by the formation of a double-membrane vesicle, the autophagosome, which captures cytosolic proteins and organelles during its transformation from a planar membrane disk into a sphere. In this way, cytosolic material first becomes lumenal and is then delivered for degradation to the lysosome. An unsolved set of questions in autophagy concerns the membrane of the autophagosome: what are the signals for its formation and what is its identity? Recently we provided some clues that may help answer these questions. By following the dynamics of several phosphatidylinositol 3-phosphate (PI3P)-binding proteins during amino acid starvation (and autophagy induction) we concluded that at least some autophagosomes are formed in a starvation-induced, PI3P-enriched membrane compartment dynamically connected to the endoplasmic reticulum (ER). We termed the membranes of this compartment omegasomes (from their omega-like shape). Our data suggest that PI3P is important for providing localization clues and perhaps for facilitating the fusion step at the final stage of autophagosome formation.

Elizabeth L. Axe

Papers

Autophagosome formation from membrane compartments enriched in phosphatidylinositol 3-phosphate and dynamically connected to the endoplasmic reticulum

Making autophagosomes: localized synthesis of phosphatidylinositol 3-phosphate holds the clue.