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 an evolutionarily conserved cellular process, through which damaged organelles and superfluous proteins are degraded, for maintaining the correct cellular balance during stress insult. It involves formation of double-membrane vesicles, named autophagosomes, that capture cytosolic cargo and deliver it to lysosomes, where the breakdown products are recycled back to cytoplasm. On the basis of degraded cell components, some selective types of autophagy can be identified (mitophagy, ribophagy, reticulophagy, lysophagy, pexophagy, lipophagy, and glycophagy). Dysregulation of autophagy can induce various disease manifestations, such as inflammation, aging, metabolic diseases, neurodegenerative disorders and cancer. The understanding of the molecular mechanism that regulates the different phases of the autophagic process and the role in the development of diseases are only in an early stage. There are still questions that must be answered concerning the functions of the autophagy-related proteins. In this review, we describe the principal cellular and molecular autophagic functions, selective types of autophagy and the main in vitro methods to detect the role of autophagy in the cellular physiology. We also summarize the importance of the autophagic behavior in some diseases to provide a novel insight for target therapies.

BackgroundCancer cells, including colorectal cancer ones (CRC), release high amounts of nanovesicles (exosomes), delivering biochemical messages for paracrine or systemic crosstalk. Mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) have been shown to play contradicting roles in tumor progression.ResultsCRC exosomes induce in cMSCs: i) atypical morphology, higher proliferation, migration and invasion; ii) formation of spheroids; iii) an acidic extracellular environment associated with iv) a plasma membrane redistribution of vacuolar H+-ATPase and increased expression of CEA. Colon cancer derived MSCs, which were isolated from tumor masses, produce umbilicated spheroids, a future frequently observed in the inner core of rapidly growing tumors and recapitulate the changes observed in normal colonic MSCs exposed to CRC exosomes.Materials and MethodsTissue specific colonic (c)MSCs were exposed to primary or metastatic CRC exosomes and analysed by light and electron microscopy, proliferation in 2D and 3D cultures, migration and invasion assays, Western blot and confocal microscopy for vacuolar H+-ATPase expression.ConclusionsCRC exosomes are able to induce morphological and functional changes in colonic MSCs, which may favour tumor growth and its malignant progression. Our results suggest that exosomes are actively involved in cancer progression and that inhibiting tumor exosome release may represent a way to interfere with cancer.