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.

The endoplasmic reticulum (ER) is a site of protein biogenesis in eukaryotic cells. Perturbing ER homeostasis activates stress programs collectively called the unfolded protein response (UPR). The UPR enhances production of ER-resident chaperones and enzymes to reduce the burden of misfolded proteins. On resolution of ER stress, ill-defined, selective autophagic programs remove excess ER components. Here we identify Sec62, a constituent of the translocon complex regulating protein import in the mammalian ER, as an ER-resident autophagy receptor. Sec62 intervenes during recovery from ER stress to selectively deliver ER components to the autolysosomal system for clearance in a series of events that we name recovER-phagy. Sec62 contains a conserved LC3-interacting region in the C-terminal cytosolic domain that is required for its function in recovER-phagy, but is dispensable for its function in the protein translocation machinery. Our results identify Sec62 as a critical molecular component in maintenance and recovery of ER homeostasis. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ncb3423Posted at the Zurich Open Repository and Archive, University of Zurich ZORA URL: https://doi.org/10.5167/uzh-127515 Accepted Version Originally published at: Fumagalli, Fiorenza; Noak, Julia; Bergmann, Timothy J; Presmanes, Eduardo Cebollero; Pisoni, Giorgia Brambilla; Fasana, Elisa; Fregno, Ilaria; Galli, Carmela; Loi, Marisa; Solda, Tatiana; D'Antuono, Rocco; Raimondi, Andrea; Jung, Martin; Melnyk, Armin; Schorr, Stefan; Schreiber, Anne; Simonelli, Luca; Varani, Luca; Wilson-Zbinden, Caroline; Zerbe, Oliver; Hofmann, Kay; Peter, Matthias; Quadroni, Manfredo; Zimmermann, Richard; Molinari, Maurizio (2016 To define mechanisms that regulate the return of ER-resident chaperones and folding factors to their physiologic intracellular level after resolution of an ER stress, we established a protocol for reversible induction of UPR in cultured mammalian cells (Fig. 1a). Briefly, human embryonic kidney cells (HEK293) or mouse embryonic fibroblasts (MEF) were exposed for 12 h to non-toxic doses of cyclopiazonic acid (CPA), a reversible inhibitor of the sarco/endoplasmic reticulum calcium pump 6 . The return of ER-resident gene products at their pre-stress level was monitored during resolution of the UPR obtained upon CPA wash out ( CPA wash out initiated a recovery phase characterized by the rapid return of ER stress-induced transcripts at, or below, their pre-stress levels (Fig. 1b, recovery, T 1/2 average ≈ 1 h, blue line). The corresponding ER stress-induced proteins returned to their physiologic levels with much slower kinetics (Fig. 1c, d, T 1/2 average ≈ 10 h, blue). 3With the exception of Herp, which is rapidly turned over with intervention of proteasomes (Fig. 1c, d (Fig. 1g, 2a) and other membrane and luminal ER marker proteins such as Sec62 and Crt ( Fig. 2b and Extended data Fig. 3) in 0.5-1.5 µm diameter cytoplasmic puncta that rapidly disappeared upon BafA1 wash out (Extended data Fig. 4). Cytosolic puncta containing ER marker prot...

Summary Background The biogenesis of autophagosomes, the hallmark of autophagy, depends on the function of the autophagy-related (Atg) proteins and the generation of phosphatidylinositol-3-phosphate (PtdIns3P) at the phagophore assembly site (PAS), the location where autophagosomes arise. The current model is that PtdIns3P is involved primarily in the recruitment of Atg proteins to the PAS and that once an autophagosome is complete, the Atg machinery is released from its surface back into the cytoplasm and reused for the formation of new vesicles. Results We have identified a PtdIns3P phosphatase, Ymr1, that is essential for the normal progression of both bulk and selective types of autophagy. This protein is recruited to the PAS at an early stage of formation of this structure through a process that requires both its GRAM domain and its catalytic activity. In the absence of Ymr1, Atg proteins fail to dissociate from the limiting membrane of autophagosomes, and these vesicles accumulate in the cytoplasm. Conclusions Our data thus reveal a key role for PtdIns3P turnover in the regulation of the late steps of autophagosome biogenesis and indicate that the disassembly of the Atg machinery from the surface of autophagosomes is a requisite for their fusion with the vacuole.