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

No abstract

Actin is involved in the organization of the Golgi complex and Golgi-to-ER protein transport in mammalian cells. Little, however, is known about the regulation of the Golgi-associated actin cytoskeleton. We provide evidence that Cdc42, a small GTPase that regulates actin dynamics, controls Golgi-to-ER protein transport. We located GFP-Cdc42 in the lateral portions of Golgi cisternae and in COPI-coated and noncoated Golgi-associated transport intermediates. Overexpression of Cdc42 and its activated form Cdc42V12 inhibited the retrograde transport of Shiga toxin from the Golgi complex to the ER, the redistribution of the KDEL receptor, and the ER accumulation of Golgi-resident proteins induced by the active GTP-bound mutant of Sar1 (Sar1[H79G]). Coexpression of wild-type or activated Cdc42 and N-WASP also inhibited Golgi-to-ER transport, but this was not the case in cells expressing Cdc42V12 and N-WASP(ΔWA), a mutant form of N-WASP that lacks Arp2/3 binding. Furthermore, Cdc42V12 recruited GFP-N-WASP to the Golgi complex. We therefore conclude that Cdc42 regulates Golgi-to-ER protein transport in an N-WASP–dependent manner