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

No abstract

In previous studies, we observed that cells treated with aminochrome obtained by oxidizing dopamine with oxidizing agents dramatically changed cell morphology, thus posing the question if such morphological changes were dependent on aminochrome or the oxidizing agents used to produce aminochrome. Therefore, to answer this question, we have now purified aminochrome on a CM-Sepharose 50-100 column and, using NMR studies, we have confirmed that the resulting aminochrome was pure and that it retained its structure. Fluorescence microscopy with calcein-AM and transmission electron microscopy showed that RCSN-3 cells presented an elongated shape that did not change when the cells were incubated with 50 muM aminochrome or 100 muM dicoumarol, an inhibitor of DT-diaphorase. However, the cell were reduced in size and the elongated shape become spherical when the cells where incubated with 50 muM aminochrome in the presence of 100 muM dicoumarol. Under these conditions, actin, alpha-, and beta-tubulin cytoskeleton filament networks became condensed around the cell membrane. Actin aggregates were also observed in cells processes that connected the cells in culture. These results suggest that aminochrome one-electron metabolism induces the disruption of the normal morphology of actin, alpha-, and beta-tubulin in the cytoskeleton, and that DT-diaphorase prevents these effects.

No abstract