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

Macroautophagy is a dynamic process involving the rearrangement of subcellular membranes to sequester cytoplasm and organelles for delivery to the lysosome or vacuole where the sequestered cargo is degraded and recycled. This process takes place in all eukaryotic cells. It is highly regulated through the action of various kinases, phosphatases, and guanosine triphosphatases (GTPases). The core protein machinery that is necessary to drive formation and consumption of intermediates in the macroautophagy pathway includes a ubiquitin-like protein conjugation system and a protein complex that directs membrane docking and fusion at the lysosome or vacuole. Macroautophagy plays an important role in developmental processes, human disease, and cellular response to nutrient deprivation.

/pdf/autophagy-as-a-regulated-pathway-of-cellular-degradation-4g6yntqpv7.pdf

Autophagy as a Regulated Pathway of Cellular Degradation

https://www.owrb.ok.gov/quality/standards/pdf_standards/scenicrivers/Smith,%20Tilman%20and%20Nekola%201999.pdf

Eutrophication: impacts of excess nutrient inputs on freshwater, marine, and terrestrial ecosystems

A primary focus of coastal science during the past 3 decades has been the question: How does anthropogenic nutrient enrichment cause change in the structure or function of nearshore coastal ecosystems? This theme of environmental science is recent, so our conceptual model of the coastal eutrophication problem continues to change rapidly In this review, I suggest that the early (Phase I) con- ceptual model was strongly influenced by limnologists, who began intense study of lake eutrophication by the 1960s The Phase I model emphasized changing nutrient input as a signal, and responses to that signal as increased phytoplankton biomass and primary production, decomposition of phytoplankton- derived organic matter, and enhanced depletion of oxygen from bottom waters Coastal research in recent decades has identified key differences in the responses of lakes and coastal-estuarine ecosystems to nutrient enrichment The contemporary (Phase II) conceptual model reflects those differences and includes explicit recognition of (1) system-specific attributes that act as a filter to modulate the responses to enrichment (leading to large differences among estuarine-coastal systems in their sensitivity to nu- trient enrichment); and (2) a complex suite of direct and indirect responses including linked changes in: water transparency, distribution of vascular plants and biomass of macroalgae, sediment biogeochem- istry and nutrient cycling, nutrient ratios and their regulation of phytoplankton community composition, frequency of toxic/harmful algal blooms, habitat quality for metazoans, reproduction/growth/survival of pelagic and benthic invertebrates, and subtle changes such as shifts in the seasonality of ecosystem functions Each aspect of the Phase II model is illustrated here with examples from coastal ecosystems around the world In the last section of this review I present one vision of the next (Phase III) stage in the evolution of our conceptual model, organized around 5 questions that will guide coastal science in the early 21st century: (1) How do system-specific attributes constrain or amplify the responses of coastal ecosystems to nutrient enrichment? (2) How does nutrient enrichment interact with other stressors (toxic contaminants, fishing harvest, aquaculture, nonindigenous species, habitat loss, climate change, hydro- logic manipulations) to change coastal ecosystems? (3) How are responses to multiple stressors linked? (4) How does human-induced change in the coastal zone impact the Earth system as habitat for humanity and other species? (5) How can a deeper scientific understanding of the coastal eutrophication problem be applied to develop tools for building strategies at ecosystem restoration or rehabilitation?

https://www.int-res.com/articles/meps/210/m210p223.pdf

Our evolving conceptual model of the coastal eutrophication problem

Toxic phytoplankton blooms in the sea

https://febs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1016/0014-5793%2894%2900672-5

Isolation of autophagocytosis mutants of Saccharomyces cerevisiae.

Harmful Marine Algal Blooms

Industrial penicillin production with the filamentous fungus Penicillium chrysogenum is based on an unprecedented effort in microbial strain improvement. To gain more insight into penicillin synthesis, we sequenced the 32.19 Mb genome of P. chrysogenum Wisconsin54-1255 and identified numerous genes responsible for key steps in penicillin production. DNA microarrays were used to compare the transcriptomes of the sequenced strain and a penicillinG high-producing strain, grown in the presence and absence of the side-chain precursor phenylacetic acid. Transcription of genes involved in biosynthesis of valine, cysteine and alpha-aminoadipic acid-precursors for penicillin biosynthesis-as well as of genes encoding microbody proteins, was increased in the high-producing strain. Some gene products were shown to be directly controlling beta-lactam output. Many key cellular transport processes involving penicillins and intermediates remain to be characterized at the molecular level. Genes predicted to encode transporters were strongly overrepresented among the genes transcriptionally upregulated under conditions that stimulate penicillinG production, illustrating potential for future genomics-driven metabolic engineering.

/pdf/genome-sequencing-and-analysis-of-the-filamentous-fungus-39b1pgk9uk.pdf

Genome sequencing and analysis of the filamentous fungus Penicillium chrysogenum

Ben Distel,* Ralf Erdmann, ¢ Stephen J. Gould, ~ Gtinter Blobel,I Denis I. Crane, I James M. Cregg,** Gabriele Dodt,* Yukio Fujiki, *~ Joel M. Goodman, ~ Wilhelm W. Just, D Jan A.K.W. Kiel, 11 Wolf-Hubert Kunau,* Paul B. Lazarow,*** Guy P. Mannaerts, ~*~ Hugo W. Moser, §~§ Takashi Osumi, Richard A. Rachubinski,11~l Adelbert Roscher,**** Suresh Subramani, **¢* Henk F. Tabak,* Toshiro Tsukamoto,llllll David Valle, ~ § Ida van der Klei, ~11I Paul P. van Veldhoven, ¢** and Marten Veenhuis ~I~I

/pdf/a-unified-nomenclature-for-peroxisome-biogenesis-factors-598kvai76l.pdf

Marten Veenhuis

Papers

Toxic phytoplankton blooms in the sea

Isolation of autophagocytosis mutants of Saccharomyces cerevisiae.

Harmful Marine Algal Blooms

Genome sequencing and analysis of the filamentous fungus Penicillium chrysogenum

A unified nomenclature for peroxisome biogenesis factors.