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.

Over the past two decades, the molecular machinery that underlies autophagic responses has been characterized with ever increasing precision in multiple model organisms. Moreover, it has become clear that autophagy and autophagy-related processes have profound implications for human pathophysiology. However, considerable confusion persists about the use of appropriate terms to indicate specific types of autophagy and some components of the autophagy machinery, which may have detrimental effects on the expansion of the field. Driven by the overt recognition of such a potential obstacle, a panel of leading experts in the field attempts here to define several autophagy-related terms based on specific biochemical features. The ultimate objective of this collaborative exchange is to formulate recommendations that facilitate the dissemination of knowledge within and outside the field of autophagy research.

No abstract

During the innate response to many inflammatory and infectious stimuli, dendritic cells (DCs) undergo a differentiation process termed maturation. Mature DCs activate antigen-specific naive T cells. Here we show that both immature and mature DCs activate resting human natural killer (NK) cells. Within 1 wk the NK cells increase two– to fourfold in numbers, start secreting interferon (IFN)-γ, and acquire cytolytic activity against the classical NK target LCL721.221. The DC-activated NK cells then kill immature DCs efficiently, even though the latter express substantial levels of major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class I. Similar results are seen with interleukin (IL)-2–activated NK cell lines and clones, i.e., these NK cells kill and secrete IFN-γ in response to immature DCs. Mature DCs are protected from activated NK lysis, but lysis takes place if the NK inhibitory signal is blocked by a human histocompatibility leukocyte antigen (HLA)-A,B,C–specific antibody. The NK activating signal mainly involves the NKp30 natural cytotoxicity receptor, and not the NKp46 or NKp44 receptor. However, both immature and mature DCs seem to use a NKp30 independent mechanism to act as potent stimulators for resting NK cells. We suggest that DCs are able to control directly the expansion of NK cells and that the lysis of immature DCs can regulate the afferent limb of innate and adaptive immunity.

Immunostimulatory properties of dendritic cells (DCs) are linked to their maturation state. Injection of mature DCs rapidly enhances antigen-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T cell immunity in humans. Here we describe the immune response to a single injection of immature DCs pulsed with influenza matrix peptide (MP) and keyhole limpet hemocyanin (KLH) in two healthy subjects. In contrast to prior findings using mature DCs, injection of immature DCs in both subjects led to the specific inhibition of MP-specific CD8+ T cell effector function in freshly isolated T cells and the appearance of MP-specific interleukin 10–producing cells. When pre- and postimmunization T cells were boosted in culture, there were greater numbers of MP-specific major histocompatibility complex tetramer-binding cells after immunization, but these had reduced interferon γ production and lacked killer activity. These data demonstrate the feasibility of antigen-specific inhibition of effector T cell function in vivo in humans and urge caution with the use of immature DCs when trying to enhance tumor or microbial immunity.

CD4+ T cells classically recognize antigens that are endocytosed and processed in lysosomes for presentation on major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class II molecules. Here, endogenous Epstein-Barr virus nuclear antigen 1 (EBNA1) was found to gain access to this pathway by autophagy. On inhibition of lysosomal acidification, EBNA1, the dominant CD4+ T cell antigen of latent Epstein-Barr virus infection, slowly accumulated in cytosolic autophagosomes. In addition, inhibition of autophagy decreased recognition by EBNA1-specific CD4+ T cell clones. Thus, lysosomal processing after autophagy may contribute to MHC class II-restricted surveillance of long-lived endogenous antigens including nuclear proteins relevant to disease.