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

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

Mounting evidence suggests that autophagy is a more selective process than originally anticipated. The discovery and characterization of autophagic adapters, like p62 and NBR1, has provided mechanistic insight into this process. p62 and NBR1 are both selectively degraded by autophagy and able to act as cargo receptors for degradation of ubiquitinated substrates. A direct interaction between these autophagic adapters and the autophagosomal marker protein LC3, mediated by a so-called LIR (LC3-interacting region) motif, their inherent ability to polymerize or aggregate as well as their ability to specifically recognize substrates are required for efficient selective autophagy. These three required features of autophagic cargo receptors are evolutionarily conserved and also employed in the yeast cytoplasm-to-vacuole targeting (Cvt) pathway and in the degradation of P granules in C. elegans. Here, we review the mechanistic basis of selective autophagy in mammalian cells discussing the degradation of misfolded proteins, p62 bodies, aggresomes, mitochondria and invading bacteria. The emerging picture of selective autophagy affecting the regulation of cell signaling with consequences for oxidative stress responses, tumorigenesis and innate immunity is also addressed.

Selective autophagy mediated by autophagic adapter proteins

The lysosomal degradation pathway known as autophagy has an essential homeostatic role in controlling the quality of the cytoplasm. However, this pathway has also been implicated in the pathology of an array of human disorders. Here, Rubinsztein and colleagues provide an overview of the mechanisms and regulation of autophagy, discuss the role of this pathway in disease and highlight potential strategies for therapeutic modulation.

/pdf/autophagy-modulation-as-a-potential-therapeutic-target-for-2jy1kcxaer.pdf

Autophagy modulation as a potential therapeutic target for diverse diseases

Macroautophagy (hereafter referred to as autophagy) is a catabolic pathway to isolate and transport cytosolic components to the lysosome for degradation. Recently, autophagy receptors, like p62/SQSTM1 and NBR1, which physically link autophagic cargo to ATG8/MAP1-LC3/GABARAP family members located on the forming autophagic membranes, have been identified. To identify conditions or compounds that affect autophagy, cell systems that efficiently report on autophagic flux are required. Here we describe reporter cell systems based on induced expression of GFPp62, GFP-NBR1 or GFP-LC3B. The degradation of the fusion proteins was followed after promoter shut-off by flow cytometry of live cells. All three fusion proteins were degraded at a basal rate by autophagy. Surprisingly, the basal degradation rate varied for the three reporter fusion proteins. GFP-LC3B was the most stable protein. GFP-NBR1 was most efficiently degraded under basal conditions while degradation of GFP-p62 displayed the strongest response to amino acid starvation. GFP-p62 was found to perform the best of the tested reporters. Single cell analysis of autophagic flux by flow cytometry allows estimates of heterogeneous cell populations. The feasibility of this approach was demonstrated using transient overexpression of a dominant negative ULK1 kinase and siRNA-mediated knockdown of LC3B to inhibit autophagic degradation of GFP-p62. The inducible GFP-p62 cell system allows quantification by several approaches and will be useful in screening for compounds or conditions that affect the rate of autophagy. Inducers of autophagy can be identified using rich medium whereas inhibitors are identified under starvation conditions.

Ingvill Harneshaug

Papers

A reporter cell system to monitor autophagy based on p62/SQSTM1.