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

Hypoxia-Inducible Factors in Physiology and Medicine

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

While hypoxia-inducible factor (HIF) is a major actor in the cell survival response to hypoxia, HIF also is associated with cell death. Several studies implicate the HIF-induced putative BH3-only proapoptotic genes bnip3 and bnip3l in hypoxia-mediated cell death. We, like others, do not support this assertion. Here, we clearly demonstrate that the hypoxic microenvironment contributes to survival rather than cell death by inducing autophagy. The ablation of Beclin1, a major actor of autophagy, enhances cell death under hypoxic conditions. In addition, the ablation of BNIP3 and/or BNIP3L triggers cell death, and BNIP3 and BNIP3L are crucial for hypoxia-induced autophagy. First, while the small interfering RNA-mediated ablation of either BNIP3 or BNIP3L has little effect on autophagy, the combined silencing of these two HIF targets suppresses hypoxia-mediated autophagy. Second, the ectopic expression of both BNIP3 and BNIP3L in normoxia activates autophagy. Third, 20-mer BH3 peptides of BNIP3 or BNIP3L are sufficient in initiating autophagy in normoxia. Herein, we propose a model in which the atypical BH3 domains of hypoxia-induced BNIP3/BNIP3L have been designed to induce autophagy by disrupting the Bcl-2-Beclin1 complex without inducing cell death. Hypoxia-induced autophagy via BNIP3 and BNIP3L is clearly a survival mechanism that promotes tumor progression.

/pdf/hypoxia-induced-autophagy-is-mediated-through-hypoxia-2i88mtp3bn.pdf

Hypoxia-Induced Autophagy Is Mediated through Hypoxia-Inducible Factor Induction of BNIP3 and BNIP3L via Their BH3 Domains

Hypoxia and energetic tumour metabolism.

The hypoxia-inducible factor 1 (HIF-1), in addition to genetic and epigenetic changes, is largely responsible for alterations in cell metabolism in hypoxic tumor cells. This transcription factor not only favors cell proliferation through the metabolic shift from oxidative phosphorylation to glycolysis and lactic acid production but also stimulates nutrient supply by mediating adaptive survival mechanisms. In this study we showed that glycogen synthesis is enhanced in non-cancer and cancer cells when exposed to hypoxia, resulting in a large increase in glycogen stores. Furthermore, we demonstrated that the mRNA and protein levels of the first enzyme of glycogenesis, phosphoglucomutase1 (PGM1), were increased in hypoxia. We showed that induction of glycogen storage as well as PGM1 expression were dependent on HIF-1 and HIF-2. We established that hypoxia-induced glycogen stores are rapidly mobilized in cells that are starved of glucose. Glycogenolysis allows these “hypoxia-preconditioned” cells to confront and survive glucose deprivation. In contrast normoxic control cells exhibit a high rate of cell death following glucose removal. These findings point to the important role of hypoxia and HIF in inducing mechanisms of rapid adaptation and survival in response to a decrease in oxygen tension. We propose that a decrease in pO2 acts as an “alarm” that prepares the cells to face subsequent nutrient depletion and to survive.

/pdf/glycogen-synthesis-is-induced-in-hypoxia-by-the-hypoxia-5avaiiynix.pdf

Glycogen Synthesis is Induced in Hypoxia by the Hypoxia-Inducible Factor and Promotes Cancer Cell Survival

http://www.cell.com/article/S0966842X21003188/pdf

Mitochondria-mediated oxidative stress during viral infection.

Glycogen is the main energetic polymer of glucose in vertebrate animals and plays a crucial role in whole body metabolism as well as in cellular metabolism. Many methods to detect glycogen already exist but only a few are quantitative. We describe here a method using the Abcam Glycogen assay kit, which is based on specific degradation of glycogen to glucose by glucoamylase. Glucose is then specifically oxidized to a product that reacts with the OxiRed probe to produce fluorescence. Titration is accurate, sensitive and can be achieved on cell extracts or tissue sections. However, in contrast to other techniques, it does not give information about the distribution of glycogen in the cell. As an example of this technique, we describe here the titration of glycogen in two cell lines, Chinese hamster lung fibroblast CCL39 and human colon carcinoma LS174, incubated in normoxia (21% O2) versus hypoxia (1% O2). We hypothesized that hypoxia is a signal that prepares cells to synthesize and store glycogen in order to survive(1).

/pdf/biochemical-titration-of-glycogen-in-vitro-1xyxiyq7xk.pdf

Grégory Bellot

Papers

Hypoxia-Induced Autophagy Is Mediated through Hypoxia-Inducible Factor Induction of BNIP3 and BNIP3L via Their BH3 Domains

Hypoxia and energetic tumour metabolism.

Glycogen Synthesis is Induced in Hypoxia by the Hypoxia-Inducible Factor and Promotes Cancer Cell Survival

Mitochondria-mediated oxidative stress during viral infection.

Biochemical titration of glycogen in vitro.