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

[Abstract unavailable

Toxoplasma gondii resides in an intracellular compartment (parasitophorous vacuole) that excludes transmembrane molecules required for endosome - lysosome recruitment. Thus, the parasite survives by avoiding lysosomal degradation. However, autophagy can re-route the parasitophorous vacuole to the lysosomes and cause parasite killing. This raises the possibility that T. gondii may deploy a strategy to prevent autophagic targeting to maintain the non-fusogenic nature of the vacuole. We report that T. gondii activated EGFR in endothelial cells, retinal pigment epithelial cells and microglia. Blockade of EGFR or its downstream molecule, Akt, caused targeting of the parasite by LC3+ structures, vacuole-lysosomal fusion, lysosomal degradation and killing of the parasite that were dependent on the autophagy proteins Atg7 and Beclin 1. Disassembly of GPCR or inhibition of metalloproteinases did not prevent EGFR-Akt activation. T. gondii micronemal proteins (MICs) containing EGF domains (EGF-MICs; MIC3 and MIC6) appeared to promote EGFR activation. Parasites defective in EGF-MICs (MIC1 ko, deficient in MIC1 and secretion of MIC6; MIC3 ko, deficient in MIC3; and MIC1-3 ko, deficient in MIC1, MIC3 and secretion of MIC6) caused impaired EGFR-Akt activation and recombinant EGF-MICs (MIC3 and MIC6) caused EGFR-Akt activation. In cells treated with autophagy stimulators (CD154, rapamycin) EGFR signaling inhibited LC3 accumulation around the parasite. Moreover, increased LC3 accumulation and parasite killing were noted in CD154-activated cells infected with MIC1-3 ko parasites. Finally, recombinant MIC3 and MIC6 inhibited parasite killing triggered by CD154 particularly against MIC1-3 ko parasites. Thus, our findings identified EGFR activation as a strategy used by T. gondii to maintain the non-fusogenic nature of the parasitophorous vacuole and suggest that EGF-MICs have a novel role in affecting signaling in host cells to promote parasite survival.

Cellular programs coupled to cycles of epithelial–mesenchymal transitions (EMTs) play critical roles during embryogenesis, as well as during tissue development, remodeling, and repair. Research over the last decade has established the importance of an ever-expanding list of master EMT transcription factors, whose activity is regulated by STAT3 and function to stimulate the rapid transition of cells between epithelial and mesenchymal phenotypes. Importantly, inappropriate reactivation of embryonic EMT programs in carcinoma cells underlies their metastasis to distant organ sites, as well as their acquisition of stem cell-like and chemoresistant phenotypes operant in eliciting disease recurrence. Thus, targeted inactivation of master EMT transcription factors may offer new inroads to alleviate metastatic disease. Here we review the molecular, cellular, and microenvironmental factors that contribute to the pathophysiological activities of STAT3 during its regulation of EMT programs in human carcinomas.