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, 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)

Over the past two decades, the molecular machinery that underlies autophagic responses has been characterized with ever increasing precision in multiple model organisms. Moreover, it has become clear that autophagy and autophagy-related processes have profound implications for human pathophysiology. However, considerable confusion persists about the use of appropriate terms to indicate specific types of autophagy and some components of the autophagy machinery, which may have detrimental effects on the expansion of the field. Driven by the overt recognition of such a potential obstacle, a panel of leading experts in the field attempts here to define several autophagy-related terms based on specific biochemical features. The ultimate objective of this collaborative exchange is to formulate recommendations that facilitate the dissemination of knowledge within and outside the field of autophagy research.

/pdf/molecular-definitions-of-autophagy-and-related-processes-27en62okjr.pdf

Molecular definitions of autophagy and related processes

https://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/pdf/S1550-4131(12)00018-6.pdf

FAT SIGNALS - Lipases and Lipolysis in Lipid Metabolism and Signaling

Macroautophagy, initially described as a non-selective nutrient recycling process, is essential for the removal of multiple cellular components. In the past three decades, selective autophagy has been characterized as a highly regulated and specific degradation pathway for removal of unwanted cytosolic components and damaged and/or superfluous organelles. Here, we discuss different types of selective autophagy, emphasizing the role of ligand receptors and scaffold proteins in providing cargo specificity, and highlight unanswered questions in the field.

/pdf/cargo-recognition-and-degradation-by-selective-autophagy-256egoe5dv.pdf

Cargo recognition and degradation by selective autophagy

CGI-58, the causative gene for Chanarin-Dorfman syndrome, mediates acylation of lysophosphatidic acid

Autophagy is a membrane trafficking pathway that sequesters proteins and organelles into autophagosomes. The selectivity of this pathway is determined by autophagy receptors, such as the Pichia pastoris autophagy-related protein 30 (Atg30), which controls the selective autophagy of peroxisomes (pexophagy) through the assembly of a receptor protein complex (RPC). However, how the pexophagic RPC is regulated for efficient formation of the phagophore, an isolation membrane that sequesters the peroxisome from the cytosol, is unknown. Here we describe a new, conserved acyl-CoA–binding protein, Atg37, that is an integral peroxisomal membrane protein required specifically for pexophagy at the stage of phagophore formation. Atg30 recruits Atg37 to the pexophagic RPC, where Atg37 regulates the recruitment of the scaffold protein, Atg11. Palmitoyl-CoA competes with Atg30 for Atg37 binding. The human orthologue of Atg37, acyl-CoA–binding domain containing protein 5 (ACBD5), is also peroxisomal and is required specifically for pexophagy. We suggest that Atg37/ACBD5 is a new component and positive regulator of the pexophagic RPC.

https://rupress.org/jcb/article-pdf/204/4/541/1363017/jcb_201307050.pdf

Peroxisomal Atg37 binds Atg30 or palmitoyl-CoA to regulate phagophore formation during pexophagy

YLR099C (ICT1) Encodes a Soluble Acyl-CoA-dependent Lysophosphatidic Acid Acyltransferase Responsible for Enhanced Phospholipid Synthesis on Organic Solvent Stress in Saccharomyces cerevisiae

https://era.library.ualberta.ca/items/a252116e-2cdc-41a0-ba2f-8f77b3d268c2/view/3227443b-47b2-4017-b1be-89449e4592f4/JBC_2017_42.pdf

Multiple mechanisms contribute to increased neutral lipid accumulation in yeast producing recombinant variants of plant diacylglycerol acyltransferase 1.

Geetha Ramakrishnan

Papers

CGI-58, the causative gene for Chanarin-Dorfman syndrome, mediates acylation of lysophosphatidic acid

Peroxisomal Atg37 binds Atg30 or palmitoyl-CoA to regulate phagophore formation during pexophagy

YLR099C (ICT1) Encodes a Soluble Acyl-CoA-dependent Lysophosphatidic Acid Acyltransferase Responsible for Enhanced Phospholipid Synthesis on Organic Solvent Stress in Saccharomyces cerevisiae

Multiple mechanisms contribute to increased neutral lipid accumulation in yeast producing recombinant variants of plant diacylglycerol acyltransferase 1.