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

No abstract

Macroautophagy is an intracellular, vesicle-mediated mechanism for the sequestration and ultimate lysosomal degradation of cytoplasmic proteins, organelles and macromolecules. The macroautophagy process and many of the autophagy-specific (Atg) proteins are remarkably well conserved in higher eukaryotes. In yeast, the Atg1 kinase complex includes Atg1, Atg13, Atg17, and at least four other interacting proteins, some of which are phosphorylated in a TOR-dependent manner, placing the Atg1 signaling complex downstream of a major nutrient-sensing pathway. Atg1 orthologs, including mammalian unc-51-like kinase 1 (ULK1), have been identified in higher eukaryotes and have been functionally linked to autophagy. This suggests that other components of the Atg1 complex exist in higher eukaryotes. Recently, a putative human Atg13 ortholog, FLJ20698, was identified by gapped-BLAST analysis. We show here that FLJ20698 (Atg13) is a ULK1-interacting phosphoprotein that is essential for macroautophagy. Furthermore, we identify a novel, human Atg13-interacting protein, FLJ11773, which we have termed Atg101. Atg101 is essential for autophagy and interacts with ULK1 in an Atg13-dependent manner. Additionally, we present evidence that intracellular localization of the ULK1 complex is regulated by nutrient conditions. Finally, we demonstrate that Atg101 stabilizes the expression of Atg13 in the cell, suggesting that Atg101 contributes to Atg13 function by protecting Atg13 from proteasomal degradation. Therefore, the identification of the novel protein, Atg101, and the validation of Atg13 and Atg101 as ULK1-interacting proteins, suggests an Atg1 complex is involved in the induction of macroautophagy in mammalian cells.

SUMMARY Recently, we demonstrated that RPL5 and RPL11 act in a mutually dependent manner to inhibit Hdm2 and stabilize p53 following impaired ribosome biogenesis. Given that RPL5 and RPL11 form a preribosomal complex with noncoding 5S ribosomal RNA (rRNA) and the three have been implicated in the p53 response, we reasoned they may be part of an Hdm2-inhibitory complex. Here, we show that small interfering RNAs directed against 5S rRNA have no effect on total or nascent levels of the noncoding rRNA, though they prevent the reported Hdm4 inhibition of p53. To achieve efficient inhibition of 5S rRNA synthesis, we targeted TFIIIA, a specific RNA polymerase III cofactor, which, like depletion of either RPL5 or RPL11, did not induce p53. Instead, 5S rRNA acts in a dependent manner with RPL5 and RPL11 to inhibit Hdm2 and stabilize p53. Moreover, depletion of any one of the three components abolished the binding of the other two to Hdm2, explaining their common dependence. Finally, we demonstrate that the RPL5/RPL11/5S rRNA preribosomal complex is redirected from assembly into nascent 60S ribosomes to Hdm2 inhibition as a consequence of impaired ribosome biogenesis. Thus, the activation of the Hdm2-inhibitory complex is not a passive but a regulated event, whose potential role in tumor suppression has been recently noted.

IL-6 modulates immune responses and is essential for timely wound healing. As the functions mediated by IL-6 require binding to its specific receptor, IL-6Rα, it was expected that mice lacking IL-6Rα would have the same phenotype as IL-6–deficient mice. However, although IL-6Rα–deficient mice share many of the inflammatory deficits seen in IL-6–deficient mice, they do not display the delay in wound healing. Surprisingly, mice with a combined deficit of IL-6 and IL-6Rα, or IL-6–deficient mice treated with an IL-6Rα–blocking Ab, showed improved wound healing relative to mice with IL-6 deficiency, indicating that the absence of the receptor contributed to the restoration of timely wound healing, rather than promiscuity of IL-6 with an alternate receptor. Wounds in mice lacking IL-6 showed delays in macrophage infiltration, fibrin clearance, and wound contraction that were not seen in mice lacking IL-6Rα alone and were greatly reduced in mice with a combined deficit of IL-6 and IL-6Rα. MAPK activation-loop phosphorylation was elevated in wounds of IL-6Rα–deficient mice, and treatment of wounds in these mice with the MEK inhibitor U0126 resulted in a delay in wound healing suggesting that aberrant ERK activation may contribute to improved healing. These findings underscore a deeper complexity for IL-6Rα function in inflammation than has been recognized previously.