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)

Autophagosome biogenesis starts at the isolation membrane (also called the phagophore). Our understanding of the molecular processes that initiate the isolation membrane, the membrane sources from which this membrane originates and how it is expanded to the autophagosome membrane by autophagy-related (ATG) proteins and the vesicular trafficking machinery, is increasing.

The autophagosome: origins unknown, biogenesis complex

Selective autophagy is a quality control pathway through which cellular components are sequestered into double-membrane vesicles and delivered to specific intracellular compartments. This process requires autophagy receptors that link cargo to growing autophagosomal membranes. Selective autophagy is also implicated in various membrane trafficking events. Here we discuss the current view on how cargo selection and transport are achieved during selective autophagy, and point out molecular mechanisms that are congruent between autophagy and vesicle trafficking pathways.

Cargo recognition and trafficking in selective autophagy

The WD40 Repeat PtdIns(3)P-Binding Protein EPG-6 Regulates Progression of Omegasomes to Autophagosomes

The cellular recycling process of autophagy has been extensively characterized with standard assays in yeast and mammalian cell lines. In multicellular organisms, numerous external and internal factors differentially affect autophagy activity in specific cell types throughout the stages of organismal ontogeny, adding complexity to the analysis of autophagy in these metazoans. Here we summarize currently available assays for monitoring the autophagic process in the nematode C. elegans. A combination of measuring levels of the lipidated Atg8 ortholog LGG-1, degradation of well-characterized autophagic substrates such as germline P granule components and the SQSTM1/p62 ortholog SQST-1, expression of autophagic genes and electron microscopy analysis of autophagic structures are presently the most informative, yet steady-state, approaches available to assess autophagy levels in C. elegans. We also review how altered autophagy activity affects a variety of biological processes in C. elegans such as L1 survival under starvation conditions, dauer formation, aging, and cell death, as well as neuronal cell specification. Taken together, C. elegans is emerging as a powerful model organism to monitor autophagy while evaluating important physiological roles for autophagy in key developmental events as well as during adulthood.

Guidelines for monitoring autophagy in Caenorhabditis elegans

The mechanism by which protein aggregates are selectively degraded by autophagy is poorly understood. Previous studies show that a family of Atg8-interacting proteins function as receptors linking specific cargoes to the autophagic machinery. Here we demonstrate that during Caenorhabditis elegans embryogenesis, epg-7 functions as a scaffold protein mediating autophagic degradation of several protein aggregates, including aggregates of the p62 homologue SQST-1, but has little effect on other autophagy-regulated processes. EPG-7 self-oligomerizes and is degraded by autophagy independently of SQST-1. SQST-1 directly interacts with EPG-7 and colocalizes with EPG-7 aggregates in autophagy mutants. Mutations in epg-7 impair association of SQST-1 aggregates with LGG-1/Atg8 puncta. EPG-7 interacts with multiple ATG proteins and colocalizes with ATG-9 puncta in various autophagy mutants. Unlike core autophagy genes, epg-7 is dispensable for starvation-induced autophagic degradation of substrate aggregates. Our results indicate that under physiological conditions a scaffold protein endows cargo specificity and also elevates degradation efficiency by linking the cargo–receptor complex with the autophagic machinery.

https://rupress.org/jcb/article-pdf/201/1/113/1359069/jcb_201209098.pdf

The scaffold protein EPG-7 links cargo-receptor complexes with the autophagic assembly machinery

The mechanism underlying autophagic degradation of a protein aggregate remains largely unknown. A family of receptor proteins that simultaneously bind to the cargo and the Atg8 family of autophagy proteins (such as the MAP1LC3/LC3 subfamily) has been shown to confer cargo selectivity. The selectivity and efficiency of protein aggregate removal is also modulated by scaffold proteins that interact with receptor proteins and ATG proteins. During C. elegans embryogenesis, autophagic clearance of the cargoes PGL-1 and PGL-3 requires the receptor protein SEPA-1 and the scaffold protein EPG-2. SEPA-1 and EPG-2 also form aggregates that are degraded by autophagy. Here we investigated the effect of composition and organization of PGL granules on their autophagic degradation. We found that depletion of PGL-1 or PGL-3 facilitates the degradation of SEPA-1 and EPG-2. Removal of EPG-2 is also promoted when SEPA-1 is absent. Depletion of PGL-1 or PGL-3 renders the degradation of SEPA-1 independent of EPG-2. We further showed that overexpression of SEPA-1 or EPG-2 as well as SQST-1 or EPG-7 (scaffold protein), which belong to different classes of aggregate, has no evident effect on the degradation of the other type. Our results indicate that the composition and organization of protein aggregates provide another layer of regulation to modulate degradation efficiency.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/15548627.2017.1339843

The composition of a protein aggregate modulates the specificity and efficiency of its autophagic degradation.

The mechanisms that specify and maintain the characteristics of germ cells during animal development are poorly understood. In this study, we demonstrated that loss of function of the zinc-finger gene lsy-2 results in various somatic cells adopting germ cells characteristics, including expression of germline-specific P granules, enhanced RNAi activity and transgene silencing. The soma to germ transformation in lsy-2 mutants requires the activities of multiple chromatin remodeling complexes, including the MES-4 complex and the ISW-1 complex. The distinct germline-specific features in somatic cells and the gene expression profile indicate that LSY-2 acts in the Mec complex in this process. Our study demonstrated that lsy-2 functions in the maintenance of the soma-germ distinction.

/pdf/lsy-2-is-essential-for-maintaining-the-germ-soma-distinction-1n0tqev4yi.pdf

Long Lin

Papers

The WD40 Repeat PtdIns(3)P-Binding Protein EPG-6 Regulates Progression of Omegasomes to Autophagosomes

Guidelines for monitoring autophagy in Caenorhabditis elegans

The scaffold protein EPG-7 links cargo-receptor complexes with the autophagic assembly machinery

The composition of a protein aggregate modulates the specificity and efficiency of its autophagic degradation.

LSY-2 is essential for maintaining the germ-soma distinction in C. elegans