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

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)

// Anqun Tang 1,* , Keyu Gao 1,* , Laili Chu 1,* , Rui Zhang 1 , Jing Yang 1 and Junnian Zheng 1,2 1 Jiangsu Center for the Collaboration and Innovation of Cancer Biotherapy, Cancer Institute, Jiangsu, China 2 Department of Oncology, The First Affiliated Hospital, Xuzhou Medical University, Xuzhou, Jiangsu, China * These authors have contributed equally to this work Correspondence to: Junnian Zheng, email: // Jing Yang, email: // Keywords : Aurora kinases, mitosis, cancer therapy target, Aurora kinases inhibitors, combination therapy Received : November 01, 2016 Accepted : January 17, 2017 Published : January 29, 2017 Abstract Aurora kinases, a family of serine/threonine kinases, consisting of Aurora A (AURKA), Aurora B (AURKB) and Aurora C (AURKC), are essential kinases for cell division via regulating mitosis especially the process of chromosomal segregation. Besides regulating mitosis, Aurora kinases have been implicated in regulating meiosis. The deletion of Aurora kinases could lead to failure of cell division and impair the embryonic development. Overexpression or gene amplification of Aurora kinases has been clarified in a number of cancers. And a growing number of studies have demonstrated that inhibition of Aurora kinases could potentiate the effect of chemotherapies. For the past decades, a series of Aurora kinases inhibitors (AKIs) developed effectively repress the progression and growth of many cancers both in vivo and in vitro , suggesting that Aurora kinases could be a novel therapeutic target. In this review, we’ll first briefly present the structure, localization and physiological functions of Aurora kinases in mitosis, then describe the oncogenic role of Aurora kinases in tumorigenesis, we shall finally discuss the outcomes of AKIs combination with conventional therapy.

/pdf/aurora-kinases-novel-therapy-targets-in-cancers-3xatx5vkwm.pdf

Aurora kinases: novel therapy targets in cancers

Guidelines for the use and interpretatoin of assays for monitoring autophagy

Fish satellite cells have been extracted from various species, but the myogenic characteristics of these cells in culture remain largely unknown. We show here that 60%-70% of the adherent cells are myogenic based on their immunoreactivity for the myogenic regulatory factor MyoD. In DMEM containing 10% fetal calf serum (FCS), trout myoblasts display rapid expression of myogenin (18% of myogenin-positive cells at day 2) combined with rapid fusion into myotubes (50% of myogenin-positive nuclei and 30% nuclei in myosin heavy chain [MyHC]-positive cells at day 7). These kinetics of differentiation are reminiscent of the behavior of fetal myoblasts in mammals. However, not all the myogenic cells differentiate; this subpopulation of cells might correspond to the previously named “reserve” cells. More than 90% of the BrdU-positive cells are also positive for MyoD, indicating that myogenic cells proliferate in vitro. By contrast, less than 1% of myogenin-positive cells are positive for BrdU suggesting that myogenin expression occurs only in post-mitotic cells. In order to maximize either the proliferation or the differentiation of cells, we have defined new culture conditions based on the use of a proliferation medium (F10+10%FCS) and a differentiation medium (DMEM+2%FCS). Three days after switching the medium, the differentiation index (% MyHC-positive nuclei) is 40-fold higher than that in proliferation medium, whereas the proliferation index (% BrdU-positive nuclei) is three-fold lower. Stimulation of cell proliferation by insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF1), IGF2, and FGF2 is greater in F10 medium. The characterization of these extracted muscle cells thus validates the use of this in vitro system of myogenesis in further studies of the myogenic activity of growth factors in trout.

In vitro characterization of proliferation and differentiation of trout satellite cells.

Many fish species experience long periods of fasting often associated with seasonal reductions in water temperature and prey availability or spawning migrations. During periods of nutrient restriction, changes in metabolism occur to provide cellular energy via catabolic processes. Muscle is particularly affected by prolonged fasting as proteins of this tissue act as a major energy source. However, the molecular components involved in muscle protein degradation as well as the regulatory networks that control their function are still incompletely defined in fish. The present work aimed to characterize the response of the autophagy-lysosomal degradative pathway to nutrient and serum availability in primary culture of rainbow trout myoblasts. In this aim, 4-day-old cells were incubated in a serum and amino acid-rich medium (complete medium), a serum and amino acid-deprived medium (minimal medium) or a minimal medium plus amino acids, and both the transcription-independent short-term response and the transcription-dependent long-term response of the autophagy-lysosomal degradative pathway were analyzed. We report that serum and amino acids withdrawal is accompanied by a rapid increase of autophagosome formation but also by a slower induction of the expression of several autophagy-related genes (LC3B, gabarapl1, atg4b). We also showed that this latter response is controlled by amino acid (AA) availability and that both TOR-dependent and TOR-independent pathways are involved in this effect. Together these results suggest an important role for AA released by muscle proteolysis during the fasting period in regulating the subtle balance between using proteins as disposable furniture to provide energy, and conserving muscle through protein sparing.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.4161/auto.18863

Jean Charles Gabillard

Papers

In vitro characterization of proliferation and differentiation of trout satellite cells.

Amino acids downregulate the expression of several autophagy-related genes in rainbow trout myoblasts.

Aurora-C interacts with and phosphorylates the transforming acidic coiled-coil 1 protein.

Trout myomaker contains 14 minisatellites and two sequence extensions but retains fusogenic function.