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

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.

The uptake and degradation of cytoplasmic material by vacuolar autophagy in plants has been studied extensively by electron microscopy and shown to be involved in developmental processes such as vacuole formation, deposition of seed storage proteins and senescence, and in the response of plants to nutrient starvation and to pathogens. The isolation of genes required for autophagy in yeast has allowed the identification of many of the corresponding Arabidopsis genes based on sequence similarity. Knockout mutations in some of these Arabidopsis genes have revealed physiological roles for autophagy in nutrient recycling during nitrogen deficiency and in senescence. Recently, markers for monitoring autophagy in whole plants have been developed, opening the way for future studies to decipher the mechanisms and pathways of autophagy, and the function of these pathways in plant development and stress responses.

Peroxisomes are metabolically diverse organelles with essential roles in plant development. The major protein constituents of plant peroxisomes are well characterized, whereas only a few low-abundance and regulatory proteins have been reported to date. We performed an in-depth proteome analysis of Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana) leaf peroxisomes using onedimensional gel electrophoresis followed by liquid chromatography and tandem mass spectrometry. We detected 65 established plant peroxisomal proteins, 30 proteins whose association with Arabidopsis peroxisomes had been previously demonstrated only by proteomic data, and 55 putative novel proteins of peroxisomes. We subsequently tested the subcellular targeting of yellow fluorescent protein fusions for selected proteins and confirmed the peroxisomal localization for 12 proteins containing predicted peroxisome targeting signals type 1 or 2 (PTS1/2), three proteins carrying PTS-related peptides, and four proteins that lack conventional targeting signals. We thereby established the tripeptides SLM. and SKV. (where . indicates the stop codon) as new PTS1s and the nonapeptide RVx 5 HF as a putative new PTS2. The 19 peroxisomal proteins conclusively identified from this study potentially carry out novel metabolic and regulatory functions of peroxisomes. Thus, this study represents an important step toward defining the complete plant peroxisomal proteome.Surrounded by single membranes, peroxisomes are small, ubiquitous eukaryotic organelles mediating a wide range of oxidative metabolic activities that vary by the species, cell type, and environmental conditions in which the organism lives (Beevers, 1979;Van den Bosch et al., 1992). Plant peroxisomes are essential to physiological processes such as lipid metabolism, photorespiration, and plant hormone biosynthesis and metabolism (Olsen and Harada,