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)

Autophagy: Renovation of Cells and Tissues

Autophagy is an essential, homeostatic process by which cells break down their own components. Perhaps the most primordial function of this lysosomal degradation pathway is adaptation to nutrient deprivation. However, in complex multicellular organisms, the core molecular machinery of autophagy - the 'autophagy proteins' - orchestrates diverse aspects of cellular and organismal responses to other dangerous stimuli such as infection. Recent developments reveal a crucial role for the autophagy pathway and proteins in immunity and inflammation. They balance the beneficial and detrimental effects of immunity and inflammation, and thereby may protect against infectious, autoimmune and inflammatory diseases.

/pdf/autophagy-in-immunity-and-inflammation-4bzgpizibc.pdf

Autophagy in immunity and inflammation

Recent advances have provided substantial insight into the maintenance of mucosal immunity and the pathogenesis of inflammatory bowel disease. Cellular programs responsible for intestinal homeostasis use diverse intracellular and intercellular networks to promote immune tolerance, inflammation or epithelial restitution. Complex interfaces integrate local host and microbial signals to activate appropriate effector programs selectively and even drive plasticity between these programs. In addition, genetic studies and mouse models have emphasized the role of genetic predispositions and how they affect interactions with microbial and environmental factors, leading to pro-colitogenic perturbations of the host-commensal relationship.

Genetics and pathogenesis of inflammatory bowel disease

Immunogenicity depends on two key factors: antigenicity and adjuvanticity. The presence of exogenous or mutated antigens explains why infected cells and malignant cells can initiate an adaptive immune response provided that the cells also emit adjuvant signals as a consequence of cellular stress and death. Several infectious pathogens have devised strategies to control cell death and limit the emission of danger signals from dying cells, thereby avoiding immune recognition. Similarly, cancer cells often escape immunosurveillance owing to defects in the molecular machinery that underlies the release of endogenous adjuvants. Here, we review current knowledge on the mechanisms that underlie the activation of immune responses against dying cells and their pathophysiological relevance.

Immunogenic cell death in cancer and infectious disease

Autophagy is emerging as a crucial defense mechanism against bacteria, but the host intracellular sensors responsible for inducing autophagy in response to bacterial infection remain unknown. Here we demonstrated that the intracellular sensors Nod1 and Nod2 are critical for the autophagic response to invasive bacteria. By a mechanism independent of the adaptor RIP2 and transcription factor NF-kappaB, Nod1 and Nod2 recruited the autophagy protein ATG16L1 to the plasma membrane at the bacterial entry site. In cells homozygous for the Crohn's disease-associated NOD2 frameshift mutation, mutant Nod2 failed to recruit ATG16L1 to the plasma membrane and wrapping of invading bacteria by autophagosomes was impaired. Our results link bacterial sensing by Nod proteins to the induction of autophagy and provide a functional link between Nod2 and ATG16L1, which are encoded by two of the most important genes associated with Crohn's disease.

Nod1 and Nod2 direct autophagy by recruiting ATG16L1 to the plasma membrane at the site of bacterial entry

https://www.cell.com/immunity/pdf/S1074-7613(13)00474-3.pdf

The Protein ATG16L1 Suppresses Inflammatory Cytokines Induced by the Intracellular Sensors Nod1 and Nod2 in an Autophagy-Independent Manner

Autophagy is a homeostatic pathway that processes and recycles damaged organelles and other cytoplasmic contents. While studies have implicated autophagy in the immune response to infection, the un...

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.4161/gmic.1.5.13295

Mahendrasingh Ramjeet

Papers

Nod1 and Nod2 direct autophagy by recruiting ATG16L1 to the plasma membrane at the site of bacterial entry

The Protein ATG16L1 Suppresses Inflammatory Cytokines Induced by the Intracellular Sensors Nod1 and Nod2 in an Autophagy-Independent Manner

'Nodophagy': New cross-roads in Crohn's disease pathogenesis