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

Research in autophagy continues to accelerate,(1) and as a result many new scientists are entering the field. Accordingly, it is important to establish a standard set of criteria for monitoring macroautophagy in different organisms. Recent reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose.(2,3) There are many useful and convenient methods that can be used to monitor macroautophagy in yeast, but relatively few in other model systems, and there is much confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure macroautophagy in higher eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers of autophagosomes versus those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway; thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from fully functional autophagy that includes delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of the methods that can be used by investigators who are attempting to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as by reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that investigate these processes. This set of guidelines is 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 verify an autophagic response.

BackgroundStroke rehabilitation with different exercise paradigms has been investigated, but which one is more effective in facilitating motor recovery and up-regulating brain neurotrophic factor (BDNF) after brain ischemia would be interesting to clinicians and patients. Voluntary exercise, forced exercise, and involuntary muscle movement caused by functional electrical stimulation (FES) have been individually demonstrated effective as stroke rehabilitation intervention. The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of these three common interventions on brain BDNF changes and motor recovery levels using a rat ischemic stroke model.Methodology/Principal FindingsOne hundred and seventeen Sprague-Dawley rats were randomly distributed into four groups: Control (Con), Voluntary exercise of wheel running (V-Ex), Forced exercise of treadmill running (F-Ex), and Involuntary exercise of FES (I-Ex) with implanted electrodes placed in two hind limb muscles on the affected side to mimic gait-like walking pattern during stimulation. Ischemic stroke was induced in all rats with the middle cerebral artery occlusion/reperfusion model and fifty-seven rats had motor deficits after stroke. Twenty-four hours after reperfusion, rats were arranged to their intervention programs. De Ryck's behavioral test was conducted daily during the 7-day intervention as an evaluation tool of motor recovery. Serum corticosterone concentration and BDNF levels in the hippocampus, striatum, and cortex were measured after the rats were sacrificed. V-Ex had significantly better motor recovery in the behavioral test. V-Ex also had significantly higher hippocampal BDNF concentration than F-Ex and Con. F-Ex had significantly higher serum corticosterone level than other groups.Conclusion/SignificanceVoluntary exercise is the most effective intervention in upregulating the hippocampal BDNF level, and facilitating motor recovery. Rats that exercised voluntarily also showed less corticosterone stress response than other groups. The results also suggested that the forced exercise group was the least preferred intervention with high stress, low brain BDNF levels and less motor recovery.

The combined use of natural ECM components and synthetic materials offers an attractive alternative to fabricate hydrogel-based tissue engineering scaffolds to study cell-matrix interactions in three-dimensions (3D). A facile method was developed to modify gelatin with cysteine via a bifunctional PEG linker, thus introducing free thiol groups to gelatin chains. A covalently crosslinked gelatin hydrogel was fabricated using thiolated gelatin and poly(ethylene glycol) diacrylate (PEGdA) via thiol-ene reaction. Unmodified gelatin was physically incorporated in a PEGdA-only matrix for comparison. We sought to understand the effect of crosslinking modality on hydrogel physicochemical properties and the impact on 3D cell entrapment. Compared to physically incorporated gelatin hydrogels, covalently crosslinked gelatin hydrogels displayed higher maximum weight swelling ratio (Qmax), higher water content, significantly lower cumulative gelatin dissolution up to 7 days, and lower gel stiffness. Furthermore, fibroblasts encapsulated within covalently crosslinked gelatin hydrogels showed extensive cytoplasmic spreading and the formation of cellular networks over 28 days. In contrast, fibroblasts encapsulated in the physically incorporated gelatin hydrogels remained spheroidal. Hence, crosslinking ECM protein with synthetic matrix creates a stable scaffold with tunable mechanical properties and with long-term cell anchorage points, thus supporting cell attachment and growth in the 3D environment.