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.

No abstract

Pex14p, an S. cerevisiae peroxin, is attached to the outer face of the peroxisomal membrane and is a component of the protein import machinery. Pex14p interacts with both the PTS1 and PTS2 receptors. It is the only known peroxisomal membrane protein that binds the PTS2 receptor and might thus mediate the membrane docking event of PTS2-dependent protein import. These results suggest that the two import pathways overlap and, furthermore, that Pex14p represents the point of convergence. Pex14p also interacts with two other membrane-bound peroxins including Pex13p, another binding protein for the PTS1 receptor. The data presented here are consistent with the idea of a common translocation machinery for both PTS-dependent protein import pathways in the peroxisomal membrane.

No abstract

CRISPR/Cas9 based systems have emerged as versatile platforms for precision genome editing in a wide range of organisms. Here we have developed powerful CRISPR/Cas9 tools for marker-based and marker-free genome modifications in Penicillium chrysogenum, a model filamentous fungus and industrially relevant cell factory. The developed CRISPR/Cas9 toolbox is highly flexible and allows editing of new targets with minimal cloning efforts. The Cas9 protein and the sgRNA can be either delivered during transformation, as preassembled CRISPR-Cas9 ribonucleoproteins (RNPs) or expressed from an AMA1 based plasmid within the cell. The direct delivery of the Cas9 protein with in vitro synthesized sgRNA to the cells allows for a transient method for genome engineering that may rapidly be applicable for other filamentous fungi. The expression of Cas9 from an AMA1 based vector was shown to be highly efficient for marker-free gene deletions.

PEX genes encode proteins, termed peroxins, that are required for the biogenesis and proliferation of microbodies (peroxisomes). We have screened the available protein and DNA databases to identify putative peroxin orthologs in 17 fungal species (yeast and filamentous fungi) and in humans. This analysis demonstrated that most peroxins are present in all fungi under study. Only Pex16p is absent in most yeast species, with the exception of Yarrowia lipolytica, but this peroxin is present in all filamentous fungi. Furthermore, we found that the Y. lipolytica PEX9 gene, a putative orphan gene, might encode a Pex26p ortholog. In addition, in the genomes of Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Candida glabrata, several PEX genes appear to have been duplicated, exemplified by the presence of paralogs of the peroxins Pex5p and Pex21p, which were absent in other organisms. In all organisms, we observed multiple paralogs of the peroxins involved in organelle proliferation. These proteins belong to two groups of peroxins that we propose to designate the Pex11p and Pex23p families. This redundancy may complicate future studies on peroxisome biogenesis and proliferation in fungal species.

No abstract