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.

Escherichia coli O157:H7 is a major food-borne infectious pathogen that causes diarrhea, hemorrhagic colitis, and hemolytic uremic syndrome. Here we report the complete chromosome sequence of an O157:H7 strain isolated from the Sakai outbreak, and the results of genomic comparison with a benign laboratory strain, K-12 MG1655. The chromosome is 5.5 Mb in size, 859 Kb larger than that of K-12. We identified a 4.1-Mb sequence highly conserved between the two strains, which may represent the fundamental backbone of the E. coli chromosome. The remaining 1.4-Mb sequence comprises of O157:H7-specific sequences, most of which are horizontally transferred foreign DNAs. The predominant roles of bacteriophages in the emergence of O157:H7 is evident by the presence of 24 prophages and prophage-like elements that occupy more than half of the O157:H7-specific sequences. The O157:H7 chromosome encodes 1632 proteins and 20 tRNAs that are not present in K-12. Among these, at least 131 proteins are assumed to have virulence-related functions. Genome-wide codon usage analysis suggested that the O157:H7-specific tRNAs are involved in the efficient expression of the strain-specific genes. A complete set of the genes specific to O157:H7 presented here sheds new insight into the pathogenicity and the physiology of O157:H7, and will open a way to fully understand the molecular mechanisms underlying the O157:H7 infection.

Interleukin-17A (IL-17A) is a cytokine produced by T helper 17 (Th17) cells and plays important roles in the development of inflammatory diseases. Although IL-17F is highly homologous to IL-17A and binds the same receptor, the functional roles of this molecule remain largely unknown. Here, we demonstrated with Il17a(-/-), Il17f(-/-), and Il17a(-/-)Il17f(-/-) mice that IL-17F played only marginal roles, if at all, in the development of delayed-type and contact hypersensitivities, autoimmune encephalomyelitis, collagen-induced arthritis, and arthritis in Il1rn(-/-) mice. In contrast, both IL-17F and IL-17A were involved in host defense against mucoepithelial infection by Staphylococcus aureus and Citrobacter rodentium. IL-17A was produced mainly in T cells, whereas IL-17F was produced in T cells, innate immune cells, and epithelial cells. Although only IL-17A efficiently induced cytokines in macrophages, both cytokines activated epithelial innate immune responses. These observations indicate that IL-17A and IL-17F have overlapping yet distinct roles in host immune and defense mechanisms.