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

The ability to respond and adapt to changes in the physical environment is a universal and essential cellular property. Here we demonstrated that cells respond to mechanical compressive stress by rapidly inducing autophagosome formation. We measured this response in both Dictyostelium and mammalian cells, indicating that this is an evolutionarily conserved, general response to mechanical stress. In Dictyostelium, the number of autophagosomes increased 20-fold within 10 min of 1 kPa pressure being applied and a similar response was seen in mammalian cells after 30 min. We showed in both cell types that autophagy is highly sensitive to changes in mechanical pressure and the response is graduated, with half-maximal responses at ~0.2 kPa, similar to other mechano-sensitive responses. We further showed that the mechanical induction of autophagy is TOR-independent and transient, lasting until the cells adapt to their new environment and recover their shape. The autophagic response is therefore part of an integrated response to mechanical challenge, allowing cells to cope with a continuously changing physical environment.

Macropinocytosis is a mechanism for the nonspecific bulk uptake and internalisation of extracellular fluid. This plays specific and distinct roles in diverse cell types such as macrophages, dendritic cells and neurons, by allowing cells to sample their environment, extract extracellular nutrients and regulate plasma membrane turnover. Macropinocytosis has recently been implicated in several diseases including cancer, neurodegenerative diseases and atherosclerosis. Uptake by macropinocytosis is also exploited by several intracellular pathogens to gain entry into host cells. Both capturing and subsequently processing large volumes of extracellular fluid poses a number of unique challenges for the cell. Macropinosome formation requires coordinated three-dimensional manipulation of the cytoskeleton to form shaped protrusions able to entrap extracellular fluid. The following maturation of these large vesicles then involves a complex series of membrane rearrangements to shrink and concentrate their contents, while delivering components required for digestion and recycling. Recognition of the diverse importance of macropinocytosis in physiology and disease has prompted a number of recent studies. In this article, we summarise advances in our understanding of both macropinosome formation and maturation, and seek to highlight the important unanswered questions.

Autophagy is a eukaryotic catabolic process also participating in cell-autonomous defence. Infected host cells generate double-membrane autophagosomes that mature in autolysosomes to engulf, kill and digest cytoplasmic pathogens. However, several bacteria subvert autophagy and benefit from its machinery and functions. Monitoring infection stages by genetics, pharmacology and microscopy, we demonstrate that the ESX-1 secretion system of Mycobacterium marinum, a close relative to M. tuberculosis, upregulates the transcription of autophagy genes, and stimulates autophagosome formation and recruitment to the mycobacteria-containing vacuole (MCV) in the host model organism Dictyostelium. Antagonistically, ESX-1 is also essential to block the autophagic flux and deplete the MCV of proteolytic activity. Activators of the TORC1 complex localize to the MCV in an ESX-1-dependent manner, suggesting an important role in the manipulation of autophagy by mycobacteria. Our findings suggest that the infection by M. marinum activates an autophagic response that is simultaneously repressed and exploited by the bacterium to support its survival inside the MCV.