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

During skeletal myogenesis, genomic reprogramming toward terminal differentiation is achieved by recruiting chromatinmodifying enzymes to muscle-specific loci 1,2 . The relative contribution of extracellular signaling cascades in targeting these enzymes to individual genes is unknown. Here we show that the differentiation-activated p38 pathway 3-5 targets the SWI-SNF chromatin-remodeling complex to myogenic loci. Upon differentiation, p38 kinases were recruited to the chromatin of muscle-regulatory elements. Blockade of p38α/β repressed the transcription of muscle genes by preventing recruitment of the SWI-SNF complex at these elements without affecting chromatin binding of muscle-regulatory factors and acetyltransferases. The SWI-SNF subunit BAF60 could be phosphorylated by p38α-β in vitro, and forced activation of p38α/β in myoblasts by expression of a constitutively active MKK6 (refs. 5-7) promoted unscheduled SWI-SNF recruitment to the myogenin promoter. Conversely, inactivation of SWI-SNF enzymatic subunits abrogated MKK6-dependent induction of muscle gene expression. These results identify an unexpected function of differentiation-activated p38 in converting external cues into chromatin modifications at discrete loci, by selectively targeting SWI-SNF to muscle-regulatory elements.

The balance between protein acetylation and deacetylation controls several physiological and pathological cellular processes, and the enzymes involved in the maintenance of this equilibrium—acetyltransferases (HATs) and deacetylases (HDACs)—have been widely studied. Presently, the evidences obtained in this field suggest that the dynamic acetylation equilibrium is mostly maintained through the physical and functional interplay between HAT and HDAC activities. This model overcomes the classical vision in which the epigenetic marks of acetylation have only an activating function whereas deacetylation marks have a repressing activity. Given the existence of several players involved in the preservation of this equilibrium, the identification of these complex networks of interacting proteins will likely foster our understanding of how cells regulate intracellular processes and respond to the extracellular environment and will offer the rationale for new therapeutic approaches based on epigenetic drugs in human diseases.