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.

Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) is a potent chemotactic agent for endothelial cells. Yet the signalling pathways that modulate the motogenic effects of VEGF in vascular endothelial cells are still ill defined. In the present study, we found in primary cultures of human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVEC) that VEGF increased cell migration and induced a marked reorganization of the microfilament network that was characterized by the formation of stress fibers and the recruitment of vinculin to focal adhesions. VEGF also stimulated the mitogen activated protein (MAP) kinases ERK (extracellular signal-regulated kinase) and p38 (stress activated protein kinase-2), but not SAPK1/JNK (stress activated protein kinase-1/c-Jun NH2-terminal kinase). Activation of p38 resulted in activation of MAP kinase activated protein kinase-2/3 and phosphorylation of the F-actin polymerization modulator, heat shock protein 27 (HSP27). Inhibiting the VEGF-induced activation of ERK with PD098059 did not influence actin organization or cell migration but totally inhibited the VEGF-induced incorporation of thymidine into DNA. Inhibition of p38 activity by the specific inhibitor SB203580 led to an inhibition of HSP27 phosphorylation, actin reorganization and cell migration. The results indicate that the p38 pathway conveys the VEGF signal to microfilaments inducing rearrangements of the actin cytoskeleton that regulate cell migration. By modulating cell migration, p38 may thus be an important regulator of angiogenesis.

Phosphorylation of heat shock protein 27 (HSP27) can modulate actin filament dynamics in response to growth factors. During heat shock, HSP27 is phosphorylated at the same sites and by the same protein kinase as during mitogenic stimulation. This suggests that the same function of the protein may be activated during growth factor stimulation and the stress response. To determine the role of HSP27 phosphorylation in the heat shock response, several stable Chinese hamster cell lines that constitutively express various levels of the wild-type HSP27 (HU27 cells) or a nonphosphorylatable form of human HSP27 (HU27pm3 cells) were developed. In contrast to HU27 cells, which showed increased survival after heat shock, HU27pm3 cells showed only slightly enhanced survival. Evidence is presented that stabilization of microfilaments is a major target of the protective function of HSP27. In the HU27pm3 cells, the microfilaments were thermosensitized compared with those in the control cells, whereas wild-type HSP27 caused an increased stability of these structures in HU27 cells. HU27 but not HU27pm3 cells were highly resistant to cytochalasin D treatment compared with control cells. Moreover, in cells treated with cytochalasin D, wild-type HSP27 but not the phosphorylated form of HSP27 accelerated the reappearance of actin filaments. The mutations in human HSP27 had no effect on heat shock-induced change in solubility and cellular localization of the protein, indicating that phosphorylation was not involved in these processes. However, induction of HSP27 phosphorylation by stressing agents or mitogens caused a reduction in the multimeric size of the wild-type protein, an effect which was not observed with the mutant protein. We propose that early during stress, phosphorylation-induced conformational changes in the HSP27 oligomers regulate the activity of the protein at the level of microfilament dynamics, resulting in both enhanced stability and accelerated recovery of the filaments. The level of protection provided by HSP27 during heat shock may thus represent the contribution of better maintenance of actin filament integrity to overall cell survival.