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)

For a long time, lysosomes were considered merely to be cellular 'incinerators' involved in the degradation and recycling of cellular waste. However, now there is compelling evidence indicating that lysosomes have a much broader function and that they are involved in fundamental processes such as secretion, plasma membrane repair, signalling and energy metabolism. Furthermore, the essential role of lysosomes in autophagic pathways puts these organelles at the crossroads of several cellular processes, with significant implications for health and disease. The identification of a master regulator, transcription factor EB (TFEB), that regulates lysosomal biogenesis and autophagy has revealed how the lysosome adapts to environmental cues, such as starvation, and targeting TFEB may provide a novel therapeutic strategy for modulating lysosomal function in human disease.

Signals from the lysosome: a control centre for cellular clearance and energy metabolism.

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)

Gaucher Disease Glucocerebrosidase and α-Synuclein Form a Bidirectional Pathogenic Loop in Synucleinopathies

Fifteen years of genetic research in Parkinson’s disease (PD) have led to the identification of several monogenic forms of the disorder and of numerous genetic risk factors increasing the risk to develop PD. Monogenic forms, caused by a single mutation in a dominantly or recessively inherited gene, are well-established, albeit relatively rare types of PD. They collectively account for about 30% of the familial and 3%–5% of the sporadic cases. In this article, we will summarize the current knowledge and understanding of the molecular genetics of PD. In brief, we will review familial forms of PD, basic genetic principles of inheritance (and their exceptions in PD), followed by current methods for the identification of PD genes and risk factors, and implications for genetic testing.

/pdf/genetics-of-parkinson-s-disease-43dlh5euuc.pdf

Genetics of Parkinson’s Disease

Background Recent studies indicate an increased frequency of mutations in the gene encoding glucocerebrosidase (GBA), a deficiency of which causes Gaucher's disease, among patients with Parkinson's disease. We aimed to ascertain the frequency of GBA mutations in an ethnically diverse group of patients with Parkinson's disease. Methods Sixteen centers participated in our international, collaborative study: five from the Americas, six from Europe, two from Israel, and three from Asia. Each center genotyped a standard DNA panel to permit comparison of the genotyping results across centers. Genotypes and phenotypic data from a total of 5691 patients with Parkinson's disease (780 Ashkenazi Jews) and 4898 controls (387 Ashkenazi Jews) were analyzed, with multivariate logistic-regression models and the Mantel–Haenszel procedure used to estimate odds ratios across centers. Results All 16 centers could detect two GBA mutations, L444P and N370S. Among Ashkenazi Jewish subjects, either mutation was found in 15% of p...

/pdf/multicenter-analysis-of-glucocerebrosidase-mutations-in-2gmzziqpsj.pdf

Judith Aharon-Peretz

Papers

Multicenter Analysis of Glucocerebrosidase Mutations in Parkinson's Disease