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

Expression of the nerve growth factor (NGF) receptors TrkA and p75 NTR was found to vary at the surface of PC12 cells in a cell cycle phase-specific manner. This was evidenced by using flow cytometric and microscopic analysis of cell populations labeled with antibodies to the extracellular domains of both receptors. Differential expression of these receptors also was evidenced by biotinylation of surface proteins and Western analysis, using antibodies specific for the extracellular domains of TrkA and p75 NTR . TrkA is expressed most strongly at the cell surface in M and early G1 phases, whereas p75 NTR is expressed mainly in late G1, S, and G2 phases. This expression reflects the molecular and cellular responses to NGF in specific phases of the cell cycle; in the G1 phase NGF elicits both the anti-mitogenic effect, i.e., inhibition of the G1 to S transition, and the differentiation response whereas a survival effect is provoked elsewhere in the cell cycle. A model is proposed relating these responses to the surface expression of the two receptors. These observations open the way for novel approaches to the investigation of the mechanism of NGF signal transduction.

No abstract

No abstract

Thirty-five years ago, precision-cut liver slices (PCLS) were described as a promising tool and were expected to become the standard in vitro model to study liver disease as they tick off all characteristics of a good in vitro model. In contrast to most in vitro models, PCLS retain the complex 3D liver structures found in vivo, including cell–cell and cell–matrix interactions, and therefore should constitute the most reliable tool to model and to investigate pathways underlying chronic liver disease in vitro. Nevertheless, the biggest disadvantage of the model is the initiation of a procedure-induced fibrotic response. In this review, we describe the parameters and potential of PCLS cultures and discuss whether the initially described limitations and pitfalls have been overcome. We summarize the latest advances in PCLS research and critically evaluate PCLS use and progress since its invention in 1985.