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

Degradation of mitochondria via a selective form of autophagy, named mitophagy, is a fundamental mechanism conserved from yeast to humans that regulates mitochondrial quality and quantity control. Mitophagy is promoted via specific mitochondrial outer membrane receptors, or ubiquitin molecules conjugated to proteins on the mitochondrial surface leading to the formation of autophagosomes surrounding mitochondria. Mitophagy-mediated elimination of mitochondria plays an important role in many processes including early embryonic development, cell differentiation, inflammation, and apoptosis. Recent advances in analyzing mitophagy in vivo also reveal high rates of steady-state mitochondrial turnover in diverse cell types, highlighting the intracellular housekeeping role of mitophagy. Defects in mitophagy are associated with various pathological conditions such as neurodegeneration, heart failure, cancer, and aging, further underscoring the biological relevance. Here, we review our current molecular understanding of mitophagy, and its physiological implications, and discuss how multiple mitophagy pathways coordinately modulate mitochondrial fitness and populations.

A number of proteins are known to be involved in apical/basolateral transport of proteins in polarized epithelial cells. The small GTP-binding protein Rab8 was thought to regulate basolateral transport in polarized kidney epithelial cells through the AP1B-complex-mediated pathway. However, the role of Rab8 (Rab8A) in cell polarity in vivo remains unknown. Here we show that Rab8 is responsible for the localization of apical proteins in intestinal epithelial cells. We found that apical peptidases and transporters localized to lysosomes in the small intestine of Rab8-deficient mice. Their mislocalization and degradation in lysosomes led to a marked reduction in the absorption rate of nutrients in the small intestine, and ultimately to death. Ultrastructurally, a shortening of apical microvilli, an increased number of enlarged lysosomes, and microvillus inclusions in the enterocytes were also observed. One microvillus inclusion disease patient who shows an identical phenotype to Rab8-deficient mice expresses a reduced amount of RAB8 (RAB8A; NM_005370). Our results demonstrate that Rab8 is necessary for the proper localization of apical proteins and the absorption and digestion of various nutrients in the small intestine.

The mitochondrial genome is believed to be maternally inherited in many eukaryotes. Sperm-derived paternal mitochondria enter the oocyte cytoplasm upon fertilization and then normally disappear during early embryogenesis. However, the mechanism responsible for this clearance has been unknown. Here, we show that autophagy, which delivers cytosolic components to lysosomes for degradation, is required for the elimination of paternal mitochondria in Caenorhabditis elegans. Immediately after fertilization, sperm-derived components trigger the localized induction of autophagy around sperm mitochondria. Autophagosomes engulf paternal mitochondria, resulting in their lysosomal degradation during early embryogenesis. In autophagy-defective zygotes, paternal mitochondria and their genome remain even in the first larval stage. Thus, fertilization-triggered autophagy is required for selective degradation of paternal mitochondria and thereby maternal inheritance of mitochondrial DNA.