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.

Oxidatively damaged proteins accumulate with age in almost all cell types and tissues. The activity of chaperonemediated autophagy (CMA), a selective pathway for the degradation of cytosolic proteins in lysosomes, decreases with age. We have analyzed the possible participation of CMA in the removal of oxidized proteins in rat liver and cultured mouse fibroblasts. Added to the fact that CMA substrates, when oxidized, are more efficiently internalized into lysosomes, we have found a constitutive activation of CMA during oxidative stress. Oxidation-induced activation of CMA correlates with higher levels of several components of the lysosomal translocation complex, but in particular of the lumenal chaperone, required for substrate uptake, and of the lysosomal membrane protein (lamp) type 2a, previously identified as a receptor for this pathway. In contrast with the well characterized mechanism of CMA activation during nutritional stress, which does not require de novo synthesis of the receptor, oxidation-induced activation of CMA is attained through transcriptional up-regulation of lamp2a. We conclude that CMA is activated during oxidative stress and that the higher activity of this pathway under these conditions, along with the higher susceptibility of the oxidized proteins to be taken up by lysosomes, both contribute to the efficient removal of oxidized proteins. INTRODUCTIONAccumulation of oxidized protein is a common feature of aged cells (Dunlop et al., 2002;Grune et al., 2001Grune et al., , 2002bStadtman, 2001). Many physiological and pathological processes lead to the generation of free radicals and consequent damage of intracellular components, including proteins. In most of these oxidative events, damaged proteins are removed from the cell through degradation by proteases (Dunlop et al., 2002). The activity of different intracellular proteolytic systems decreases with age (Terman, 1995;Cuervo and Dice, 1998a;Friguet et al., 2000;Carrard et al., 2002;Donati et al., 2001;Merker et al., 2001;Friguet, 2002;Keller et al., 2002;Ward, 2002), and this impaired activity is considered responsible for the deficient removal of oxidized proteins in old organisms (Grune, 2000;Merker and Grune, 2000;Dunlop et al., 2002;Szweda et al., 2002).The susceptibility of oxidized proteins to proteases changes with the duration and degree of oxidative damage (Dunlop et al., 2002;Mehlhase and Grune, 2002). Thus, mild oxidation induces partial protein unfolding and facilitates proteolytic cleavage (Grune et al., 1995. However, persistent or extensive oxidative damage usually promotes protein aggregation, due to the exposure of patches of hydrophobic amino acids. Once a protein aggregates, it becomes less susceptible to proteolytic cleavage (Hoff et al., 1993;Davies, 2001;Demasi and Davies, 2003). Kinetics of degradation of oxidized proteins in vitro have been analyzed using different types of proteases (Merker and Grune, 2000;Dunlop et al., 2002;Szweda et al., 2002). One of the most extensively analyzed protease in this respect has be...

Lysosomal uptake and degradation of polypeptides such as glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase (GAPDH), ribonuclease A (RNase A), and RNase S-peptide (residues 1-20 of RNase A) are progressively activated in rat liver by starvation before isolation of lysosomes. This pathway of proteolysis is selective, since it is stimulated by the heat shock cognate protein of 73 kDa (HSC73) and ATP-MgCl2, and lysosomal uptake of RNase A could be competed by GAPDH but not by ovalbumin. A portion of intracellular HSC73 is associated with certain lysosomes, and the amount of lysosomal HSC73 increases by 5- to 10-fold during prolonged starvation. The lysosome-associated HSC73 is primarily within the lysosomal lumen. Double immunogold labeling of lysosomes incubated in vitro with RNase A detects this protein substrate as well as HSC73 within lysosomes. More than two-thirds of the labeled lysosomes contain both RNase A and HSC73. The possible physiological significance of the activation of this selective pathway of lysosomal proteolysis in long-term starvation is discussed.