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

Muse cells may provide reparative effects and robust functional recovery and may, thus, provide a novel strategy for the treatment of acute myocardial infarction.

Abbreviations: AMPK, AMP-activated protein kinase; CTSD, cathepsin D; DM, diabetes mellitus; GFP, green fluorescent protein; HBA1c, glycated hemoglobin a 1; MAP1LC3/LC3, microtubule-associated protein 1 light chain 3; LV, left ventricular; MTOR, mechanistic target of rapamycin; SIRT1, sirtuin 1; Mn-SOD, superoxide dismutase 2, mitochondrial; STZ, streptozotocin; SQSTM1/p62, sequestosome 1.Little is known about the association between autophagy and diabetic cardiomyopathy. Also unknown are possible distinguishing features of cardiac autophagy in type 1 and type 2 diabetes. In hearts from streptozotocin-induced type 1 diabetic mice, diastolic function was impaired, though autophagic activity was significantly increased, as evidenced by increases in microtubule-associated protein 1 light chain 3/LC3 and LC3-II/-I ratios, SQSTM1/p62 (sequestosome 1) and CTSD (cathepsin D), and by the abundance of autophagic vacuoles and lysosomes detected electronmicroscopically. AMP-activated protein kinase (AMPK) was activated and ATP content was reduced in type 1 diabetic hearts. Treatment with chloroquine, an autophagy inhibitor, worsened cardiac performance in type 1 diabetes. In addition, hearts from db/db type 2 diabetic model mice exhibited poorer diastolic function than control hearts from db/C mice. However, levels of LC3-II, SQSTM1 and phosphorylated MTOR (mechanistic target of rapamycin) were increased, but CTSD was decreased and very few lysosomes were detected ultrastructurally, despite the abundance of autophagic vacuoles. AMPK activity was suppressed and ATP content was reduced in type 2 diabetic hearts. These findings suggest the autophagic process is suppressed at the final digestion step in type 2 diabetic hearts. Resveratrol, an autophagy enhancer, mitigated diastolic dysfunction, while chloroquine had the opposite effects in type 2 diabetic hearts. Autophagy in the heart is enhanced in type 1 diabetes, but is suppressed in type 2 diabetes. This difference provides important insight into the pathophysiology of diabetic cardiomyopathy, which is essential for the development of new treatment strategies.

These findings suggest that cardiomyocyte autophagy is an innate mechanism that protects against progression of postinfarction cardiac remodelling, implying that augmenting autophagy could be a therapeutic strategy.