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

No abstract

Autophagy is a tightly regulated catabolic process wherein cells under stress sequester cytosolic constituents like damaged proteins and organelles in double-membrane vesicles called autophagosomes. The autophagosomes degrade their cargo by lysosomal proteolysis generating raw materials for the biosynthesis of vital macromolecules. One of the initial steps in the assembly of autophagosomes from pre-autophagic structures is the recruitment and activation of the class III phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase complex consisting of Beclin 1 (BECN1), VPS34, VPS15, and ATG14 proteins. Several pieces of evidence indicate that the phosphorylation and ubiquitination of BECN1 at an array of residues fine-tune the responses to diverse autophagy modulating stimuli and helps in maintaining the balance between pro-survival autophagy and pro-apoptotic responses. In this mini-review, we will discuss the importance of distinct BECN1 phosphorylation events, the diverse signaling pathways and kinases involved and their role in the regulation of autophagy.

Receptor-interacting protein kinase-1 (RIPK1), a master regulator of cell fate decisions, was identified as a direct substrate of MAPKAP kinase-2 (MK2) by phosphoproteomic screens using LPS-treated macrophages and stress-stimulated embryonic fibroblasts. p38/MK2 interact with RIPK1 in a cytoplasmic complex and MK2 phosphorylates mouse RIPK1 at Ser321/336 in response to pro-inflammatory stimuli, such as TNF and LPS, and infection with the pathogen Yersinia enterocolitica. MK2 phosphorylation inhibits RIPK1 autophosphorylation, curtails RIPK1 integration into cytoplasmic cytotoxic complexes, and suppresses RIPK1-dependent apoptosis and necroptosis. In Yersinia-infected macrophages, RIPK1 phosphorylation by MK2 protects against infection-induced apoptosis, a process targeted by Yersinia outer protein P (YopP). YopP suppresses p38/MK2 activation to increase Yersinia-driven apoptosis. Hence, MK2 phosphorylation of RIPK1 is a crucial checkpoint for cell fate in inflammation and infection that determines the outcome of bacteria-host cell interaction.