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

Research in autophagy continues to accelerate,(1) and as a result many new scientists are entering the field. Accordingly, it is important to establish a standard set of criteria for monitoring macroautophagy in different organisms. Recent reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose.(2,3) There are many useful and convenient methods that can be used to monitor macroautophagy in yeast, but relatively few in other model systems, and there is much confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure macroautophagy in higher eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers of autophagosomes versus those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway; thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from fully functional autophagy that includes delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of the methods that can be used by investigators who are attempting to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as by reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that investigate these processes. This set of guidelines is 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 verify an autophagic response.

No abstract

Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium (S. Typhimurium) is a facultative intracellular pathogen that causes disease in a variety of hosts. S. Typhimurium actively invade host cells and typically reside within a membrane-bound compartment called the Salmonella-containing vacuole (SCV). The bacteria modify the fate of the SCV using two independent type III secretion systems (TTSS). TTSS are known to damage eukaryotic cell membranes and S. Typhimurium has been suggested to damage the SCV using its Salmonella pathogenicity island (SPI)-1 encoded TTSS. Here we show that this damage gives rise to an intracellular bacterial population targeted by the autophagy system during in vitro infection. Approximately 20% of intracellular S. Typhimurium colocalized with the autophagy marker GFP-LC3 at 1 h postinfection. Autophagy of S. Typhimurium was dependent upon the SPI-1 TTSS and bacterial protein synthesis. Bacteria targeted by the autophagy system were often associated with ubiquitinated proteins, indicating their exposure to the cytosol. Surprisingly, these bacteria also colocalized with SCV markers. Autophagy-deficient (atg5 ؊/؊ ) cells were more permissive for intracellular growth by S. Typhimurium than normal cells, allowing increased bacterial growth in the cytosol. We propose a model in which the host autophagy system targets bacteria in SCVs damaged by the SPI-1 TTSS. This serves to retain intracellular S. Typhimurium within vacuoles early after infection to protect the cytosol from bacterial colonization. Our findings support a role for autophagy in innate immunity and demonstrate that Salmonella infection is a powerful model to study the autophagy process.