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

Maintenance of the blood system is dependent on dormant haematopoietic stem cells (HSCs) with long-term self-renewal capacity. After injury these cells are induced to proliferate to quickly re-establish homeostasis. The signalling molecules promoting the exit of HSCs out of the dormant stage remain largely unknown. Here we show that in response to treatment of mice with interferon-alpha (IFNalpha), HSCs efficiently exit G(0) and enter an active cell cycle. HSCs respond to IFNalpha treatment by the increased phosphorylation of STAT1 and PKB/Akt (also known as AKT1), the expression of IFNalpha target genes, and the upregulation of stem cell antigen-1 (Sca-1, also known as LY6A). HSCs lacking the IFNalpha/beta receptor (IFNAR), STAT1 (ref. 3) or Sca-1 (ref. 4) are insensitive to IFNalpha stimulation, demonstrating that STAT1 and Sca-1 mediate IFNalpha-induced HSC proliferation. Although dormant HSCs are resistant to the anti-proliferative chemotherapeutic agent 5-fluoro-uracil, HSCs pre-treated (primed) with IFNalpha and thus induced to proliferate are efficiently eliminated by 5-fluoro-uracil exposure in vivo. Conversely, HSCs chronically activated by IFNalpha are functionally compromised and are rapidly out-competed by non-activatable Ifnar(-/-) cells in competitive repopulation assays. Whereas chronic activation of the IFNalpha pathway in HSCs impairs their function, acute IFNalpha treatment promotes the proliferation of dormant HSCs in vivo. These data may help to clarify the so far unexplained clinical effects of IFNalpha on leukaemic cells, and raise the possibility for new applications of type I interferons to target cancer stem cells.

No abstract

AimsThe aims of this observational study were to assess the variability in imatinib pharmacokinetics and to explore the relationship between its disposition and various biological covariates, especially plasma α 1 -acid glycoprotein concentrations. MethodsA population pharmacokinetic analysis was performed using NONMEM based on 321 plasma samples from 59 patients with either chronic myeloid leukaemia or gastrointestinal stromal tumours. The influence of covariates on oral clearance and volume of distribution was examined. Furthermore, the in vivo intracellular pharmacokinetics of imatinib was explored in five patients. ResultsA one-compartment model with first-order absorption appropriately described the data, giving a mean ( ± SEM) oral clearance of 14.3 l h − 1 ( ± 1.0) and a volume of distribution of 347 l ( ± 62). Oral clearance was influenced by body weight, age, sex and disease diagnosis. A large proportion of the interindividual variability (36% of clearance and 63% of volume of distribution) remained unexplained by these demographic covariates. Plasma α 1 -acid glycoprotein concentrations had a marked influence on total imatinib concentrations. Moreover, we observed an intra/extracellular ratio of 8, suggesting substantial uptake of the drug into the target cells. ConclusionBecause of the high pharmacokinetic variability of imatinib and the repor ted relationships between its plasma concentration and efficacy and toxicity, the usefulness of therapeutic drug monitoring as an aid to optimizing therapy should be fur ther investigated. Ideally, such an approach should take account of either circulating α 1 -acid glycoprotein concentrations or free imatinib concentrations.