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.

Red blood cell (RBC) aging in the blood bank is characterized by the accumulation of a significant number of biochemical and morphologic alterations. Recent mass spectrometry and electron microscopy studies have provided novel insights into the molecular changes underpinning the accumulation of storage lesions to RBCs in the blood bank. Biochemical lesions include altered cation homeostasis, reprogrammed energy, and redox metabolism, which result in the impairment of enzymatic activity and progressive depletion of high-energy phosphate compounds. These factors contribute to the progressive accumulation of oxidative stress, which in turn promotes oxidative lesions to proteins (carbonylation, fragmentation, hemoglobin glycation) and lipids (peroxidation). Biochemical lesions negatively affect RBC morphology, which is marked by progressive membrane blebbing and vesiculation. These storage lesions contribute to the altered physiology of long-stored RBCs and promote the rapid clearance of up to one-fourth of long-stored RBCs from the recipient's bloodstream after 24 hours from administration. While prospective clinical evidence is accumulating, from the present review it emerges that biochemical, morphologic, and omics profiles of stored RBCs have observable changes after approximately 14 days of storage. Future studies will assess whether these in vitro observations might have clinically meaningful effects.

These data indicate that the vesicles released during storage of RBCs contain lipid raft proteins and oxidized or reactive signaling components commonly associated with the senescent RBCs. Vesiculation during storage of RBCs may enable the RBC to shed altered or harmful material.

Hypoxanthine catabolism in vivo is potentially dangerous as it fuels production of urate and, most importantly, hydrogen peroxide. However, it is unclear whether accumulation of intracellular and supernatant hypoxanthine in stored red blood cell units is clinically relevant for transfused recipients. Leukoreduced red blood cells from glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase-normal or -deficient human volunteers were stored in AS-3 under normoxic, hyperoxic, or hypoxic conditions (with oxygen saturation ranging from <3% to >95%). Red blood cells from healthy human volunteers were also collected at sea level or after 1–7 days at high altitude (>5000 m). Finally, C57BL/6J mouse red blood cells were incubated in vitro with 13C1-aspartate or 13C5-adenosine under normoxic or hypoxic conditions, with or without deoxycoformycin, a purine deaminase inhibitor. Metabolomics analyses were performed on human and mouse red blood cells stored for up to 42 or 14 days, respectively, and correlated with 24 h post-transfusion red blood cell recovery. Hypoxanthine increased in stored red blood cell units as a function of oxygen levels. Stored red blood cells from human glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase-deficient donors had higher levels of deaminated purines. Hypoxia in vitro and in vivo decreased purine oxidation and enhanced purine salvage reactions in human and mouse red blood cells, which was partly explained by decreased adenosine monophosphate deaminase activity. In addition, hypoxanthine levels negatively correlated with post-transfusion red blood cell recovery in mice and – preliminarily albeit significantly - in humans. In conclusion, hypoxanthine is an in vitro metabolic marker of the red blood cell storage lesion that negatively correlates with post-transfusion recovery in vivo. Storage-dependent hypoxanthine accumulation is ameliorated by hypoxia-induced decreases in purine deamination reaction rates.

Summary The ubiquitin–proteasome system is central to the regulation of cellular proteostasis. Nevertheless, the impact of in vivo proteasome dysfunction on the proteostasis networks and the aging processes remains poorly understood. We found that RNAi-mediated knockdown of 20S proteasome subunits in Drosophila melanogaster resulted in larval lethality. We therefore studied the molecular effects of proteasome dysfunction in adult flies by developing a model of dose-dependent pharmacological proteasome inhibition. Impaired proteasome function promoted several ‘old-age’ phenotypes and markedly reduced flies’ lifespan. In young somatic tissues and in gonads of all ages, loss of proteasome activity induced higher expression levels and assembly rates of proteasome subunits. Proteasome dysfunction was signaled to the proteostasis network by reactive oxygen species that originated from malfunctioning mitochondria and triggered an Nrf2-dependent upregulation of the proteasome subunits. RNAi-mediated Nrf2 knockdown reduced proteasome activities, flies’ resistance to stress, as well as longevity. Conversely, inducible activation of Nrf2 in transgenic flies upregulated basal proteasome expression and activity independently of age and conferred resistance to proteotoxic stress. Interestingly, prolonged Nrf2 overexpression reduced longevity, indicating that excessive activation of the proteostasis pathways can be detrimental. Our in vivo studies add new knowledge on the proteotoxic stress-related regulation of the proteostasis networks in higher metazoans. Proteasome dysfunction triggers the activation of an Nrf2-dependent tissue- and age-specific regulatory circuit aiming to adjust the cellular proteasome activity according to temporal and/or spatial proteolytic demands. Prolonged deregulation of this proteostasis circuit accelerates aging.

No abstract