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

Previous studies have shown that β‐glucans extracted from yeast or fungi potentiate immune responses. In the present study, the immunomodulatory activities of β‐(1→3, 1→4)‐glucan, derived from oats, were investigated. The ability of oat β‐glucan (OβG) to stimulate IL‐1 and TNF‐α release from murine peritoneal macrophages and the murine macrophage cell line P338D1, was assessed. In vitro stimulation of macrophages with OβG resulted in the production of IL‐1 in a dose and time‐dependent manner, whereas only small amounts of TNF‐α could be detected in the culture supernatants. OβG also induced the production of IL‐2, IFN‐γ and IL‐4 secretion in a dose‐dependent manner in cultured spleen cells. The intraperitoneal administration of OβG in mice resulted in the accumulation of leucocytes, predominantly macrophages, in the peritoneal cavity. Furthermore, OβG was tested for its ability to enhance non‐specific resistance to a bacterial challenge in mice. Survival of mice challenged with Staphylococcus aureus was enhanced by a single intraperitoneal administration of 500 μg of OβG 3 days prior to bacterial challenge. In conclusion, these studies demonstrated that OβG possesses immunomodulatory activities capable of stimulating immune functions both in vitro and in vivo.

Subgingival microorganisms are potentially associated with periodontal diseases. However, changes in the subgingival microbiota during the progress of periodontal diseases are poorly understood. In this study, we analyzed bacterial communities in the subgingival paper point samples from 32 Korean individuals with no sign of disease, gingivitis, or periodontitis using 454 FLX Titanium pyrosequencing. A total of 256,113 reads representing 26 phyla, 433 genera, and 1,016 species were detected. Bacteroidetes, Fusobacteria, Synergistetes, and Spirochaetes were the abundant phyla in periodontitis subjects, whereas Firmicutes and Proteobacteria were identified as the dominant phyla in the gingivitis and healthy subjects, respectively. Although high levels of Porphyromonas, Fusobacterium, Fretibacterium, Rothia, Filifactor, and Treponema genera were observed in the periodontitis subjects, Streptococcus, Capnocytophaga, Leptotrichia, and Haemophilus genera were found at high frequency in the gingivitis subjects. Species including Porphyromonas gingivalis, Fusobacterium nucleatum, and Fretibacterium fastidiosum were significantly increased in periodontitis subjects. On the other hand, Streptococcus pseudopneumoniae, Haemophilus parainfluenzae, and Leptotrichia hongkongensis were preferentially observed in the gingivitis subjects. Intriguingly, the halophile Halomonas hamiltonii was revealed as a predominant species in the healthy subjects. Based on Fast UniFrac analysis, distinctive bacterial clusters were classified for the healthy, gingivitis, and periodontitis state. The current findings might be useful for understanding the pathogenesis, diagnosis, and treatment of periodontal diseases.