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

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.

Decapitated Hydra regenerate their heads via morphallaxis, i.e., without significant contributions made by cell proliferation or interstitial stem cells. Indeed, Hydra depleted of interstitial stem cells regenerate robustly, and Wnt3 from epithelial cells triggers head regeneration. However, we find a different mechanism controlling regeneration after midgastric bisection in animals equipped with both epithelial and interstitial cell lineages. In this context, we see rapid induction of apoptosis and Wnt3 secretion among interstitial cells at the head- (but not foot-) regenerating site. Apoptosis is both necessary and sufficient to induce Wnt3 production and head regeneration, even at ectopic sites. Further, we identify a zone of proliferation beneath the apoptotic zone, reminiscent of proliferative blastemas in regenerating limbs and of compensatory proliferation induced by dying cells in Drosophila imaginal discs. We propose that different types of injuries induce distinct cellular modes of Hydra head regeneration, which nonetheless converge on a central effector, Wnt3.

Polyps of the cnidarian Hydra maintain their adult anatomy through two developmental organizers, the head organizer located apically and the foot organizer basally. The head organizer is made of two antagonistic cross-reacting components, an activator, driving apical differentiation and an inhibitor, preventing ectopic head formation. Here we characterize the head inhibitor by comparing planarian genes down-regulated when β-catenin is silenced to Hydra genes displaying a graded apical-to-basal expression and an up-regulation during head regeneration. We identify Sp5 as a transcription factor that fulfills the head inhibitor properties: leading to a robust multiheaded phenotype when knocked-down in Hydra, acting as a transcriptional repressor of Wnt3 and positively regulated by Wnt/β-catenin signaling. Hydra and zebrafish Sp5 repress Wnt3 promoter activity while Hydra Sp5 also activates its own expression, likely via β-catenin/TCF interaction. This work identifies Sp5 as a potent feedback loop inhibitor of Wnt/β-catenin signaling, a function conserved across eumetazoan evolution.

The genes belonging to the Paired class exert primary developmental functions. They are characterized by six invariant amino acid residues in the homeodomain, while the residue at position 50 can be a serine, glutamine or lysine as in the Pax-type, Q50 Paired-like or the K50 Paired-like homeodomains respectively. Genes in this class emerged early in animal evolution: three distinct Pax genes and two Q50 Paired-like genes have recently been characterised from cnidarians. Phylogenetic molecular reconstructions taking into account homeodomain and paired-domain sequences provide some new perspectives on the evolution of the Paired-class genes. Analysis of 146 Paired-class homeodomains from a wide range of metazoan taxa allowed us to identify 18 families among the three sub-classes from which the aristaless family displays the least diverged position. Both Pax-type and K50 families branch within the Q50 Paired-like sequences implying that these are the most ancestral. Consequently, most Pax genes arose from a Paired-like ancestor, via fusion of a Paired-like homebox gene with a gene encoding only a paired domain; the Cnidaria appear to contain genes representing the 'before' and 'after' fusion events.