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.

BCL-2 is a 26-kDa integral membrane protein that represses apoptosis by an unknown menism. Recent findings indicate that Ca+ release from the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) mediates apoptosis in mouse lymphoma cells. In view of growing evidence that BCL-2 localizes to the ER, as well as mitochondria and the perinuclear membrane, we investigated the possibility that BCL-2 represses apoptosis by regulating CaW+ fluxes through the ER membrane. A cDNA encoding BCL-2 was introduced into WEHI7.2 cells and two subclones, W.Hb12 and W.Hbl3, which express high and low levels ofBCL-2 mRNA and protein, respectively, were isolated.

Inositol 1,4,5-trisphosphate (InsP3) receptors (InsP3Rs) are channels responsible for calcium release from the endoplasmic reticulum (ER). We show that the anti-apoptotic protein Bcl-2 (either wild type or selectively localized to the ER) significantly inhibited InsP3-mediated calcium release and elevation of cytosolic calcium in WEHI7.2 T cells. This inhibition was due to an effect of Bcl-2 at the level of InsP3Rs because responses to both anti-CD3 antibody and a cell-permeant InsP3 ester were decreased. Bcl-2 inhibited the extent of calcium release from the ER of permeabilized WEHI7.2 cells, even at saturating concentrations of InsP3, without decreasing luminal calcium concentration. Furthermore, Bcl-2 reduced the open probability of purified InsP3Rs reconstituted into lipid bilayers. Bcl-2 and InsP3Rs were detected together in macromolecular complexes by coimmunoprecipitation and blue native gel electrophoresis. We suggest that this functional interaction of Bcl-2 with InsP3Rs inhibits InsP3R activation and thereby regulates InsP3-induced calcium release from the ER.