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

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.

Ionotropic GABA receptors generally require the products of three subunit genes. By contrast, the GABA receptor needed for locomotion in Caenorhabditis elegans requires only the unc-49 gene. We cloned unc-49 and demonstrated that it possesses an unusual overlapping gene structure. unc-49 contains a single copy of a GABA receptor N terminus, followed by three tandem copies of a GABA receptor C terminus. Using a single promoter, unc-49 generates three distinct GABAA receptor-like subunits by splicing the N terminus to each of the three C-terminal repeats. This organization suggests that the three UNC-49 subunits (UNC-49A, UNC-49B, and UNC-49C) are coordinately rescued and therefore might coassemble to form a heteromultimeric GABA receptor. Surprisingly, only UNC-49B and UNC-49C are expressed at high levels, whereas UNC-49A expression is barely detectable. Green fluorescent protein-tagged UNC-49B and UNC-49C subunits are coexpressed in muscle cells and are colocalized to synaptic regions. UNC-49B and UNC-49C also coassemble efficiently in Xenopus oocytes and HEK-293 cells to form a heteromeric GABA receptor. Together these data argue that UNC-49B and UNC-49C coassemble at the C. elegans neuromuscular junction. Thus, C. elegans is able to encode a heteromeric GABA receptor with a single locus.

NMJs, the membrane-associated guanylate kinases (MAGUK), such as the vertebrate PSD-95/SAP90 (Cho et al., 1992; Kistner et al., 1993) and Drosophila Discslarge (DLG) (Woods and Bryant, 1991), are implicated in organizing the postsynaptic density (PSD) (for review,

Synaptic clustering of GABA A receptors is important for the function of inhibitory synapses, influencing synapse strength and, consequently, the balance of excitation and inhibition in the brain. Presynaptic terminals are known to induce GABA A receptor clustering during synaptogenesis, but the mechanisms of cluster formation and maintenance are not known. To study how presynaptic neurons direct the formation of GABA A receptor clusters, we have investigated GABA A receptor localization in postsynaptic cells that fail to receive presynaptic contacts in Caenorhabditis elegans. Postsynaptic muscles in C. elegans receive acetylcholine and GABA motor innervation, and GABA A receptors cluster opposite GABA terminals. Selective loss of GABA inputs caused GABA A receptors to be diffusely distributed at or near the muscle cell surface, confirming that GABA presynaptic terminals induce GABA A receptor clustering. In contrast, selective loss of acetylcholine innervation had no effect on GABA A receptor localization. However, loss of both GABA and acetylcholine inputs together caused GABA A receptors to traffic to intracellular autophagosomes. Autophagosomes normally transport bulk cytoplasm to the lysosome for degradation. However, we show that GABA A receptors traffic to autophagosomes after endocytic removal from the cell surface and that acetylcholine receptors in the same cells do not traffic to autophagosomes. Thus, autophagy can degrade cell-surface receptors and can do so selectively. Our results show that presynaptic terminals induce GABA A receptor clustering by independently controlling synaptic localization and surface stability of GABA A receptors. They also demonstrate a novel function for autophagy in GABA A receptor degradative trafficking.