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

No abstract

The amino acid sequence of the heavy chain of Bombyx mori silk fibroin was derived from the gene sequence. The 5,263-residue (391-kDa) polypeptide chain comprises 12 low-complexity "crystalline" domains made up of Gly-X repeats and covering 94% of the sequence; X is Ala in 65%, Ser in 23%, and Tyr in 9% of the repeats. The remainder includes a nonrepetitive 151-residue header sequence, 11 nearly identical copies of a 43-residue spacer sequence, and a 58-residue C-terminal sequence. The header sequence is homologous to the N-terminal sequence of other fibroins with a completely different crystalline region. In Bombyx mori, each crystalline domain is made up of subdomains of approximately 70 residues, which in most cases begin with repeats of the GAGAGS hexapeptide and terminate with the GAAS tetrapeptide. Within the subdomains, the Gly-X alternance is strict, which strongly supports the classic Pauling-Corey model, in which beta-sheets pack on each other in alternating layers of Gly/Gly and X/X contacts. When fitting the actual sequence to that model, we propose that each subdomain forms a beta-strand and each crystalline domain a two-layered beta-sandwich, and we suggest that the beta-sheets may be parallel, rather than antiparallel, as has been assumed up to now.