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

Mori for their technical advice and assistance. Care of experimental animals was within institutional guidelines. Supported by grants from the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture of Japan, and Circulation Biosystems at the University of Tsukuba. E.T. and J.1. are research fellows of the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science.

Because most potential molecular markers and targets are proteins, proteomic profiling is expected to yield more direct answers to functional and pharmacological questions than does transcriptional profiling. To aid in such studies, we have developed a protocol for making reverse-phase protein lysate microarrays with larger numbers of spots than previously feasible. Our first application of these arrays was to profiling of the 60 human cancer cell lines (NCI-60) used by the National Cancer Institute to screen compounds for anticancer activity. Each glass slide microarray included 648 lysate spots representing the NCI-60 cell lines plus controls, each at 10 two-fold serial dilutions to provide a wide dynamic range. Mouse monoclonal antibodies and the catalyzed signal amplification system were used for immunoquantitation. The signal levels from the >30,000 data points for our first 52 antibodies were analyzed by using P-SCAN and a quantitative dose interpolation method. Clustered image maps revealed biologically interpretable patterns of protein expression. Among the principal early findings from these arrays were two promising pathological markers for distinguishing colon from ovarian adenocarcinomas. When we compared the patterns of protein expression with those we had obtained for the same genes at the mRNA level by using both cDNA and oligonucleotide arrays, a striking regularity appeared: cell-structure-related proteins almost invariably showed a high correlation between mRNA and protein levels across the NCI-60 cell lines, whereas non-cell-structure-related proteins showed poor correlation.