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

Cell growth (an increase in cell mass and size through macromolecular biosynthesis) and cell cycle progression are generally tightly coupled, allowing cells to proliferate continuously while maintaining their size. The target of rapamycin (TOR) is an evolutionarily conserved kinase that integrates signals from nutrients (amino acids and energy) and growth factors (in higher eukaryotes) to regulate cell growth and cell cycle progression coordinately. In mammals, TOR is best known to regulate translation through the ribosomal protein S6 kinases (S6Ks) and the eukaryotic translation initiation factor 4E-binding proteins. Consistent with the contribution of translation to growth, TOR regulates cell, organ, and organismal size. The identification of the tumor suppressor proteins tuberous sclerosis1 and 2 (TSC1 and 2) and Ras-homolog enriched in brain (Rheb) has biochemically linked the TOR and phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K) pathways, providing a mechanism for the crosstalk that occurs between these pathways. TOR is emerging as a novel antitumor target, since the TOR inhibitor rapamycin appears to be effective against tumors resulting from aberrantly high PI3K signaling. Not only may inhibition of TOR be effective in cancer treatment, but rapamycin is an FDA-approved immunosuppressive and cardiology drug. We review here what is known (and not known) about the function of TOR in cellular and animal physiology.

The coordinated action of cell cycle progression and cell growth (an increase in cell size and cell mass) is critical for sustained cellular proliferation, yet the biochemical signals that control cell growth are poorly defined, particularly in mammalian systems. We find that cell growth and cell cycle progression are separable processes in mammalian cells and that growth to appropriate cell size requires mTOR-and PI3K-dependent signals. Expression of a rapamycin-resistant mutant of mTOR rescues the reduced cell size phenotype induced by rapamycin in a kinase-dependent manner, showing the evolutionarily conserved role of mTOR in control of cell growth. Expression of S6K1 mutants that possess partial rapamycin-resistant activity or overexpression of eIF4E individually and additively partially rescues the rapamycin-induced decrease in cell size. In the absence of rapamycin, overexpression of S6K1 or eIF4E increases cell size, and, when coexpressed, they cooperate to increase cell size further. Expression of a phosphorylation site-defective mutant of 4EBP1 that constitutively binds the eIF4E-Cap complex to inhibit translation initiation reduces cell size and blocks eIF4E effects on cell size. These data show that mTOR signals downstream to at least two independent targets, S6K1 and 4EBP1/eIF4E, that function in translational control to regulate mammalian cell size.