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 antioxidant N-acetyl-L-cysteine prevented the autophagydependent delivery of mitochondria to the vacuoles, as examined by fluorescence microscopy of mitochondria-targeted green fluorescent protein, transmission electron microscopy, and Western blot analysis of mitochondrial proteins. The effect of N-acetyl-L-cysteine was specific to mitochondrial autophagy (mitophagy). Indeed, autophagy-dependent activation of alkaline phosphatase and the presence of hallmarks of non-selective microautophagy were not altered by N-acetyl-L-cysteine. The effect of N-acetyl-L-cysteine was not related to its scavenging properties, but rather to its fueling effect of the glutathione pool. As a matter of fact, the decrease of the glutathione pool induced by chemical or genetical manipulation did stimulate mitophagy but not general autophagy. Conversely, the addition of a cellpermeable form of glutathione inhibited mitophagy. Inhibition of glutathione synthesis had no effect in the strain ⌬uth1, which is deficient in selective mitochondrial degradation. These data show that mitophagy can be regulated independently of general autophagy, and that its implementation may depend on the cellular redox status.Autophagy is a major pathway for the lysosomal/vacuolar delivery of long-lived proteins and organelles, where they are degraded and recycled. Autophagy plays a crucial role in differentiation and cellular response to stress and is conserved in eukaryotic cells from yeast to mammals (1, 2). The main form of autophagy, macroautophagy, involves the non-selective sequestration of large portions of the cytoplasm into doublemembrane structures termed autophagosomes, and their delivery to the vacuole/lysosome for degradation. Another process, microautophagy, involves the direct sequestration of parts of the cytoplasm by vacuole/lysosomes. The two processes coexist in yeast cells but their extent may depend on different factors including metabolic state: for example, we have observed that nitrogen-starved lactate-grown yeast cells develop microautophagy, whereas nitrogen-starved glucosegrown cells preferentially develop macroautophagy (3).Both macroautophagy and microautophagy are essentially non-selective, in the way that autophagosomes and vacuole invaginations do not appear to discriminate the sequestered material.