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

Since the discovery of the first nuclear factor of activated T cells (NFAT) protein more than a decade ago, the NFAT family of transcription factors has grown to include five members. It has also become clear that NFAT proteins have crucial roles in the development and function of the immune system. In T cells, NFAT proteins not only regulate activation but also are involved in the control of thymocyte development, T-cell differentiation and self-tolerance. The functional versatility of NFAT proteins can be explained by their complex mechanism of regulation and their ability to integrate calcium signalling with other signalling pathways. This Review focuses on the recent advances in our understanding of the regulation, mechanism of action and functions of NFAT proteins in T cells.

The cellular process of autophagy (literally “self-eating”) is important for maintaining the homeostasis and bioenergetics of mammalian cells. Two of the best-studied mechanisms of autophagy are macroautophagy and chaperone-mediated autophagy (CMA). Changes in macroautophagy activity have been described in cancer cells and in solid tumors, and inhibition of macroautophagy promotes tumorigenesis. Because normal cells respond to inhibition of macroautophagy by up-regulation of the CMA pathway, we aimed to characterize the CMA status in different cancer cells and to determine the contribution of changes in CMA to tumorigenesis. Here, we show consistent up-regulation of CMA in different types of cancer cells regardless of the status of macroautophagy. We also demonstrate an increase in CMA components in human cancers of different types and origins. CMA is required for cancer cell proliferation in vitro because it contributes to the maintenance of the metabolic alterations characteristic of malignant cells. Using human lung cancer xenografts in mice, we confirmed the CMA dependence of cancer cells in vivo. Inhibition of CMA delays xenograft tumor growth, reduces the number of cancer metastases, and induces regression of existing human lung cancer xenografts in mice. The fact that similar manipulations of CMA also reduce tumor growth of two different melanoma cell lines suggests that targeting this autophagic pathway may have broad antitumorigenic potential.

Material Supplementary 6.DC1http://www.jimmunol.org/content/suppl/2010/11/08/jimmunol.100057References