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

BACKGROUND Approximately 50% of melanomas harbor activating (V600) mutations in the serine–threonine protein kinase B-RAF (BRAF). The oral BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib (PLX4032) frequently produced tumor regressions in patients with BRAF V600–mutant metastatic melanoma in a phase 1 trial and improved overall survival in a phase 3 trial. METHODS We designed a multicenter phase 2 trial of vemurafenib in patients with previously treated BRAF V600–mutant metastatic melanoma to investigate the efficacy of vemurafenib with respect to overall response rate (percentage of treated patients with a tumor response), duration of response, and overall survival. The primary end point was the overall response rate as ascertained by the independent review committee; overall survival was a secondary end point. RESULTS A total of 132 patients had a median follow-up of 12.9 months (range, 0.6 to 20.1). The confirmed overall response rate was 53% (95% confidence interval [CI], 44 to 62; 6% with a complete response and 47% with a partial response), the median duration of response was 6.7 months (95% CI, 5.6 to 8.6), and the median progression-free survival was 6.8 months (95% CI, 5.6 to 8.1). Primary progression was observed in only 14% of patients. Some patients had a response after receiving vemurafenib for more than 6 months. The median overall survival was 15.9 months (95% CI, 11.6 to 18.3). The most common adverse events were grade 1 or 2 arthralgia, rash, photosensitivity, fatigue, and alopecia. Cutaneous squamous-cell carcinomas (the majority, keratoacanthoma type) were diagnosed in 26% of patients. CONCLUSIONS Vemurafenib induces clinical responses in more than half of patients with previously treated BRAF V600–mutant metastatic melanoma. In this study with a long follow-up, the median overall survival was approximately 16 months. (Funded by Hoffmann–La Roche; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00949702.)

Immune checkpoint inhibitors1 result in impressive clinical responses2–5 but optimal results will require combination with each other6 and other therapies. This raises fundamental questions about mechanisms of non-redundancy and resistance. Here, we report major tumor regressions in a subset of patients with metastatic melanoma treated with an anti-CTLA4 antibody (anti-CTLA4) and radiation (RT) and reproduced this effect in mouse models. Although combined treatment improved responses in irradiated and unirradiated tumors, resistance was common. Unbiased analyses of mice revealed that resistance was due to upregulation of PD-L1 on melanoma cells and associated with T cell exhaustion. Accordingly, optimal response in melanoma and other cancer types requires RT, anti-CTLA4, and anti-PD-L1/PD-1. Anti-CTLA4 predominantly inhibits T regulatory cells (Tregs) to increase the CD8 T cell to Treg (CD8/Treg) ratio. RT enhances the diversity of the T cell receptor (TCR) repertoire of intratumoral T cells. Together, anti-CTLA4 promotes expansion of T cells, while RT shapes the TCR repertoire of the expanded peripheral clones. Addition of PD-L1 blockade reverses T cell exhaustion to mitigate depression in the CD8/Treg ratio and further encourages oligo-clonal T cell expansion. Similar to results from mice, patients on our clinical trial with melanoma showing high PD-L1 did not respond to RT + anti-CTLA4, demonstrated persistent T cell exhaustion, and rapidly progressed. Thus, PD-L1 on melanoma cells allows tumors to escape anti-CTLA4-based therapy, and the combination of RT, anti-CTLA4, and anti-PD-L1 promotes response and immunity through distinct mechanisms.

Despite the success of monotherapies based on blockade of programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) in human melanoma, most patients do not experience durable clinical benefit. Pre-existing T-cell infiltration and/or the presence of PD-L1 in tumours may be used as indicators of clinical response; however, blood-based profiling to understand the mechanisms of PD-1 blockade has not been widely explored. Here we use immune profiling of peripheral blood from patients with stage IV melanoma before and after treatment with the PD-1-targeting antibody pembrolizumab and identify pharmacodynamic changes in circulating exhausted-phenotype CD8 T cells (Tex cells). Most of the patients demonstrated an immunological response to pembrolizumab. Clinical failure in many patients was not solely due to an inability to induce immune reinvigoration, but rather resulted from an imbalance between T-cell reinvigoration and tumour burden. The magnitude of reinvigoration of circulating Tex cells determined in relation to pretreatment tumour burden correlated with clinical response. By focused profiling of a mechanistically relevant circulating T-cell subpopulation calibrated to pretreatment disease burden, we identify a clinically accessible potential on-treatment predictor of response to PD-1 blockade.

SUMMARY Exhausted CD8+ T cells (TEX) in chronic infections and cancer have limited effector function, high inhibitory receptor co-expression and extensive transcriptional changes compared to effector (TEFF) or memory (TMEM) CD8+ T cells. TEX are important clinical targets of checkpoint blockade and other immunotherapies. Epigenetically, TEX are a distinct immune subset, with a unique chromatin landscape compared to TEFF and TMEM. However, the mechanisms governing the transcriptional and epigenetic development of TEX remain unknown. Here, we identify the HMG-box transcription factor TOX as a central regulator of TEX. TOX is largely dispensable for TEFF and TMEM formation, but is critical for exhaustion and without TOX TEX do not form. TOX is induced by calcineurin and NFAT2 and operates in a feed-forward loop to become calcineurin independent and sustained in TEX. Thus, robust TOX expression results in commitment to TEX by translating persistent stimulation into a distinct TEX transcriptional and epigenetic developmental program.