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

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)

The filamentous fungus Magnaporthe oryzae causes rice blast, the most serious disease of cultivated rice. Cellular differentiation of M. oryzae forms an infection structure called the appressorium, which generates enormous cellular turgor that is sufficient to rupture the plant cuticle. Here, we show how functional genomics approaches are providing new insight into the genetic control of plant infection by M. oryzae. We also look ahead to the key questions that need to be addressed to provide a better understanding of the molecular processes that lead to plant disease and the prospects for sustainable control of rice blast.

/pdf/under-pressure-investigating-the-biology-of-plant-infection-39d9j88mz9.pdf

Under pressure: Investigating the biology of plant infection by Magnaporthe oryzae

We isolated an MgATG1 gene encoding a serine/threonine protein kinase from the rice blast fungus Magnaporthe grisea. In the ΔMgatg1 mutant, in which the MgATG1 gene had been deleted, autophagy was blocked; the mutant also showed fewer lipid droplets in its conidia, lower turgor pressure of the appressorium, and such defects in morphogenesis as delayed initiation and slower germination of conidia. As a result of lower turgor pressure of the appressorium, the ΔMgatg1 mutant lost its ability to penetrate and infect the two host plants, namely, rice and barley. However, normal values of the parameters and infective abilities were restored on reintroducing an intact copy of the MgATG1 gene into the mutant. Autophagy is thus necessary for turnover of organic matter during the formation of conidia and appressoria and for normal development and pathogenicity in M. grisea.

Involvement of a Magnaporthe grisea serine/threonine kinase gene, MgATG1, in appressorium turgor and pathogenesis.

Because of great challenges and workload in deleting genes on a large scale, the functions of most genes in pathogenic fungi are still unclear. In this study, we developed a high-throughput gene knockout system using a novel yeast-Escherichia-Agrobacterium shuttle vector, pKO1B, in the rice blast fungus Magnaporthe oryzae. Using this method, we deleted 104 fungal-specific Zn(2)Cys(6) transcription factor (TF) genes in M. oryzae. We then analyzed the phenotypes of these mutants with regard to growth, asexual and infection-related development, pathogenesis, and 9 abiotic stresses. The resulting data provide new insights into how this rice pathogen of global significance regulates important traits in the infection cycle through Zn(2)Cys(6)TF genes. A large variation in biological functions of Zn(2)Cys(6)TF genes was observed under the conditions tested. Sixty-one of 104 Zn(2)Cys(6) TF genes were found to be required for fungal development. In-depth analysis of TF genes revealed that TF genes involved in pathogenicity frequently tend to function in multiple development stages, and disclosed many highly conserved but unidentified functional TF genes of importance in the fungal kingdom. We further found that the virulence-required TF genes GPF1 and CNF2 have similar regulation mechanisms in the gene expression involved in pathogenicity. These experimental validations clearly demonstrated the value of a high-throughput gene knockout system in understanding the biological functions of genes on a genome scale in fungi, and provided a solid foundation for elucidating the gene expression network that regulates the development and pathogenicity of M. oryzae.

/pdf/systematic-analysis-of-zn2cys6-transcription-factors-44ayjbau3g.pdf

Systematic Analysis of Zn2Cys6 Transcription Factors Required for Development and Pathogenicity by High-Throughput Gene Knockout in the Rice Blast Fungus

Scientific Reports 6: Article number: 31204; published online: 09 August 2016; updated: 27 February 2017. This Article contains typographical errors in the legend of Figure 4. ‘(B) The semithin sections of perithecia. 1, ΔMocapn14; 2, ΔMocapn7; 3, ΔMocapn9; 4, ΔMocapn4; 5, ΔMocapn7; 6, ΔMocapn4ΔMocapn7; 7, ΔMocapn9ΔMocapn7’.

/pdf/correction-corrigendum-calpains-are-involved-in-asexual-and-1o3ohxb3xl.pdf

Correction: Corrigendum: Calpains are involved in asexual and sexual development, cell wall integrity and pathogenicity of the rice blast fungus

The Cys2 -His2 (C2H2) zinc finger protein family is the second-largest family of transcription factors (TFs) in Magnaporthe oryzae, the causal fungus responsible for the destructive rice blast disease. However, little is known about the roles of most C2H2 TFs in the development and pathogenicity of M. oryzae. The roles of 47 C2H2 genes in development and pathogenicity were investigated by gene deletion in M. oryzae. The TF-dependent genes in mycelia or appressoria were analyzed with RNA sequencing and quantitative PCR (qPCR). Forty-four C2H2 genes are involved in growth (20 genes), conidiation (28 genes), appressorium formation (four genes) and pathogenicity (22 genes) in M. oryzae. Of these, MGG_14931, named as VRF1, is required for pathogenicity, specifically controlling appressorium maturation by affecting the expression of genes related to appressorial structure and function, including melanin biosynthesis, chitin catabolism, lipid metabolism, proteolysis, transmembrane transport, and response to oxidative stress; MGG_01776, named as VRF2, is required for plant penetration and invasive growth; conidiation-related gene CON7 is required for conidial differentiation; and MoCREA, encoding a carbon catabolite repression protein, is a novel repressor of lipid catabolism when glucose obtainable in M. oryzae. This study provides many insights into the regulation of growth, asexual development, appressorium formation, and pathogenicity by C2H2 TFs in M. oryzae.

Characterization of 47 Cys2 -His2 zinc finger proteins required for the development and pathogenicity of the rice blast fungus Magnaporthe oryzae.

Autophagy is a conserved degradation pathway that is involved in the maintenance of normal cell differentiation and development The Saccharomyces cerevisiaeATG5 gene is an important component of the autophagy process In this study, we identified MgATG5 as an autophagy-related gene in Magnaporthe oryzae that is homologous to ATG5 Using targeted gene replacement, an Mgatg5∆ mutant was generated and fungal autophagy was blocked Cytological analysis revealed that the mutant had poor fungal morphogenic development, including a shortened aerial hyphae lifespan, decreased conidiation and perithecia formation, delayed conidial germination and appressorial formation, postponement of conidial cytoplasm transfer during appressorium formation, and reduction in formation of the penetration peg Turnover of endogenous matter in the Mgatg5∆ mutant was also affected, as demonstrated by defects in the formation of conidial lipid droplets, and in the degradation of conidial glycogen deposits during appressorium formation Lipid droplets and glycogen are necessary to generate adequate turgor in appressoria for invading the host surface As a result of the decreased appressorium turgor and differentiation in the penetration peg, Mgatg5∆ pathogenicity was deficient in two host plants tested The developmental and pathogenic phenotypes were restored by the introduction of an intact copy of MgATG5 into Mgatg5∆, demonstrating that the MgATG5 deletion was responsible for the cellular defects Taken together, these findings suggest that autophagy promotes cell differentiation through turnover of endogenous matter during fungal development, and is thus essential for the pathogenicity of the rice blast fungus

Jian-Ping Lu

Papers

Involvement of a Magnaporthe grisea serine/threonine kinase gene, MgATG1, in appressorium turgor and pathogenesis.

Systematic Analysis of Zn2Cys6 Transcription Factors Required for Development and Pathogenicity by High-Throughput Gene Knockout in the Rice Blast Fungus

Correction: Corrigendum: Calpains are involved in asexual and sexual development, cell wall integrity and pathogenicity of the rice blast fungus

Characterization of 47 Cys2 -His2 zinc finger proteins required for the development and pathogenicity of the rice blast fungus Magnaporthe oryzae.

An autophagy gene, MgATG5 , is required for cell differentiation and pathogenesis in Magnaporthe oryzae