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

No abstract

Intraneuronal accumulation of ubiquitin conjugates in inclusion bodies and neurofibrillary tangles is a pathological feature of neurodegenerative disorders such as Alzheimer's disease and Down's syndrome and of normal aging of the brain. Amyloid beta-protein (A beta) and its precursor are found in neurofibrillary tangle-containing neurons. A beta is the major component of extracellular plaques. We showed that A beta acts as an inhibitor of the ubiquitin-dependent protein degradation in vitro. We examined the effect of A beta on the steps of this proteolytic pathway that contribute to the level of ubiquitin conjugates in the cell. Neither conjugate formation nor conjugate deubiquitination was affected by the presence of A beta. However, A beta significantly reduced the rate of conjugate degradation. Our results indicate that A beta interacts with the proteolytic step of the ubiquitin degradative pathway. Since this step is performed by the 26 S proteasome, the effect of A beta on the catalytic core of this proteolytic complex, the 20 S proteasome, was determined. We found that A beta selectively inhibits the chymotrypsin-like activity of the 20 S proteasome. Under pathological conditions in the affected neuron, A beta could interfere with ubiquitin-dependent degradation by inhibiting the 26 S proteasome activity. This finding may explain the origin of the accumulation of ubiquitin conjugates.

Proteotoxicity resulting from accumulation of damaged/unwanted proteins contributes prominently to cellular aging and neurodegeneration. Proteasomal removal of these proteins upon covalent polyubiquitination is highly regulated. Recent reports proposed a role for autophagy in clearance of diffuse ubiquitinated proteins delivered by p62/SQSTM1. Here, we compared the turnover dynamics of endogenous ubiquitinated proteins by proteasomes and autophagy by assessing the effect of their inhibitors. Autophagy inhibitors bafilomycin A1, ammonium chloride, and 3-methyladenine failed to increase ubiquitinated protein levels. The proteasome inhibitor epoxomicin raised ubiquitinated protein levels at least 3-fold higher than the lysosomotropic agent chloroquine. These trends were observed in SK-N-SH cells under serum or serum-free conditions and in WT or Atg5 ؊/؊ mouse embryonic fibroblasts (MEFs). Notably, chloroquine considerably inhibited proteasomes in SK-N-SH cells and MEFs. In these cells, elevation of p62/SQSTM1 was greater upon proteasome inhibition than with all autophagy inhibitors tested and was reduced in Atg5 ؊/؊ MEFs. With epoxomicin, soluble p62/SQSTM1 associated with proteasomes and p62/SQSTM1 aggregates contained inactive proteasomes, ubiquitinated proteins, and autophagosomes. Prolonged autophagy inhibition (96 h) failed to elevate ubiquitinated proteins in rat cortical neurons, although epoxomicin did. Moreover, prolonged autophagy inhibition in cortical neurons markedly increased p62/SQSTM1, supporting its degradation mainly by autophagy and not by proteasomes. In conclusion, we clearly demonstrate that pharmacologic or genetic inhibition of autophagy fails to elevate ubiquitinated proteins unless the proteasome is affected. We also provide strong evidence that p62/SQSTM1 associates with proteasomes and that autophagy degrades p62/SQSTM1. Overall, the function of p62/ SQSTM1 in the proteasomal pathway and autophagy requires further elucidation.