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

Limb-girdle muscular dystrophy type 2D (LGMD 2D) is an autosomal recessive disorder caused by mutations in the α-sarcoglycan gene. To determine how α-sarcoglycan deficiency leads to muscle fiber degeneration, we generated and analyzed α-sarcoglycan– deficient mice. Sgca-null mice developed progressive muscular dystrophy and, in contrast to other animal models for muscular dystrophy, showed ongoing muscle necrosis with age, a hallmark of the human disease. Sgca-null mice also revealed loss of sarcolemmal integrity, elevated serum levels of muscle enzymes, increased muscle masses, and changes in the generation of absolute force. Molecular analysis of Sgca-null mice demonstrated that the absence of α-sarcoglycan resulted in the complete loss of the sarcoglycan complex, sarcospan, and a disruption of α-dystroglycan association with membranes. In contrast, no change in the expression of ε-sarcoglycan (α-sarcoglycan homologue) was observed. Recombinant α-sarcoglycan adenovirus injection into Sgca-deficient muscles restored the sarcoglycan complex and sarcospan to the membrane. We propose that the sarcoglycan–sarcospan complex is requisite for stable association of α-dystroglycan with the sarcolemma. The Sgca-deficient mice will be a valuable model for elucidating the pathogenesis of sarcoglycan deficient limb-girdle muscular dystrophies and for the development of therapeutic strategies for this disease.

The endothelial cell monolayer of cerebral vessels and its basement membrane (BM) are ensheathed by the astrocyte endfeet, the leptomeningeal cells, and their associated parenchymal BM, all of which contribute to establishment of the blood–brain barrier (BBB). As a consequence of this unique structure, leukocyte penetration of cerebral vessels is a multistep event. In mouse experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (EAE), a widely used central nervous system inflammatory model, leukocytes first penetrate the endothelial cell monolayer and underlying BM using integrin β1-mediated processes, but mechanisms used to penetrate the second barrier defined by the parenchymal BM and glia limitans remain uninvestigated. We show here that macrophage-derived gelatinase (matrix metalloproteinase [MMP]-2 and MMP-9) activity is crucial for leukocyte penetration of the parenchymal BM. Dystroglycan, a transmembrane receptor that anchors astrocyte endfeet to the parenchymal BM via high affinity interactions with laminins 1 and 2, perlecan and agrin, is identified as a specific substrate of MMP-2 and MMP-9. Ablation of both MMP-2 and MMP-9 in double knockout mice confers resistance to EAE by inhibiting dystroglycan cleavage and preventing leukocyte infiltration. This is the first description of selective in situ proteolytic damage of a BBB-specific molecule at sites of leukocyte infiltration.

Laminins are cell adhesion molecules that comprise a family of glycoproteins found predominantly in basement membranes, which are the thin sheets of extracellular matrix that underlie epithelial and endothelial cells and surround muscle cells, Schwann cells, and fat cells. Many laminins self-assemble to form networks that remain in close association with cells through interactions with cell surface receptors. Laminins are vital for many physiological functions. They are essential for early embryonic development and organogenesis and have crucial functions in several tissues including muscle, nerve, skin, kidney, lung, and the vasculature. A great wealth of data on laminins is available, and an in-depth description is not attempted here. In this review, I will instead provide a snapshot of laminin structure, tissue distribution, and interactions with other matrix molecules and receptors and briefly describe laminin mutations in mice and humans. Several illuminating and timely reviews are cited that can be consulted for references to original articles and more detailed information concerning laminins.

No abstract