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

This study investigates the apoptotic activity of the cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor celecoxib in prostate carcinoma cells. COX-2 is constitutively expressed in androgen-responsive LNCaP and androgen-nonresponsive PC-3 cells. Exposure of these cells to celecoxib induces characteristic features of apoptosis, including morphological changes, DNA laddering, and caspase-3 activation, whereas piroxicam, a COX-1-specific inhibitor, displays no appreciable effect on either cancer cell line even after prolonged exposure. Moreover, the potency of celecoxib in apoptosis induction is significantly higher than that of other COX-2 inhibitors examined despite the observation that these inhibitors exhibit similar IC 50 in COX-2 inhibition. It is noteworthy that normal human prostate epithelial cells, expressing a marginally detectable level of COX-2, are insensitive to the induction of apoptosis by celecoxib. These data suggest a correlation between COX-2 expression and sensitivity to the apoptotic effect of the COX-2 inhibitor. In an effort to delineate the underlying mechanism, we examined the effect of celecoxib on the expression of Bcl-2 as well as the activation of the key anti-apoptotic kinase Akt. In contrast to an earlier report that attributed the apoptotic activity of NS398 in LNCaP cells to Bcl-2 down-regulation, we provide evidence that the induction of apoptosis by celecoxib in LNCaP and PC-3 cells is independent of Bcl-2. First, treatment with celecoxib does not alter the cellular Bcl-2 level in both cell lines. Second, enforced Bcl-2 expression in PC-3 cells does not confer protection against the induction of apoptosis by celecoxib. Our data show that celecoxib treatment blocks the phosphorylation of Akt. This correlation is supported by studies showing that overexpression of constitutively active Akt protects PC-3 cells from celecoxib-induced apoptosis. Nevertheless, how celecoxib down-regulates Akt is not clear because the drug does not adversely affect phosphoinositide 3-kinase activity in vivo and okadaic acid, a protein phosphatase 2A inhibitor, cannot rescue the inhibition. In summary, our data demonstrate that inhibition of Akt activation may play a crucial role in the induction of apoptosis by celecoxib.An expanding body of information has suggested the potential application of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) 1 in cancer chemoprevention (1-3). Epidemiological studies indicate that the use of aspirin and other NSAIDs reduces the risk of colorectal cancer by 40 -50% (4 -7) and, to a lesser extent, the risk of breast cancer (6,8). The fact that all NSAIDs in clinical use are cyclooxygenase (COX) inhibitors provides a putative link between the inhibition of COX activity and the chemopreventive effect of NSAIDs (1, 2, 9). Two isoforms of COX have been identified, each of which displays a distinct physiological profile. COX-1, constitutively expressed in almost all tissues, is important for the maintenance of homeostatic function, whereas COX-2, an inducible isozyme, is dramatically up-regula...

We have dissociated the apoptosis-inducing activity from the COX-2 inhibitory activity by structural modifications of the COX-2 inhibitor celecoxib. This separation of activities may provide a molecular basis for the development of new classes of apoptosis-inducing agents.

A new class of compounds that induce apoptosis by targeting Akt and ERK2 signaling pathways in human prostate cancer cells can be synthesized by modifying existing COX-2 inhibitors.

No abstract