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.

Eective anti cancer strategies necessitate the use of agents that target tumor cells rather than normal tissues. In this study, we constructed a tumor-selective adenovirus, D24, that carries a 24-bp deletion in the E1A region responsible for binding Rb protein. Immunoprecipitation analyses veri®ed that this deletion rendered D24 unable to bind the Rb protein. However, titration experiments in 293 cells demonstrated that the D24 adenovirus could replicate in and lyse cancer cells with great eciency. Lysis of most human glioma cells was observed within 10 ± 14 days after infection with D24 at 10 PFU/cell. In vivo, a single dose of the D24 virus induced a 66.3% inhibition (P50.005) and multiple injections, an 83.8% inhibition (P50.01) of tumor growth in nude mice. However, normal ®broblasts or cancer cells with restored Rb activity were resistant to the D24 adenovirus. These results suggest that the E1A-mutant D24 adenovirus may be clinically and therapeutically useful against gliomas and possibly other cancers with disrupted Rb pathway. Oncogene (2000) 19, 2 ± 12.

Purpose DNX-2401 (Delta-24-RGD; tasadenoturev) is a tumor-selective, replication-competent oncolytic adenovirus. Preclinical studies demonstrated antiglioma efficacy, but the effects and mechanisms of action have not been evaluated in patients. Methods A phase I, dose-escalation, biologic-end-point clinical trial of DNX-2401 was conducted in 37 patients with recurrent malignant glioma. Patients received a single intratumoral injection of DNX-2401 into biopsy-confirmed recurrent tumor to evaluate safety and response across eight dose levels (group A). To investigate the mechanism of action, a second group of patients (group B) underwent intratumoral injection through a permanently implanted catheter, followed 14 days later by en bloc resection to acquire post-treatment specimens. Results In group A (n = 25), 20% of patients survived > 3 years from treatment, and three patients had a ≥ 95% reduction in the enhancing tumor (12%), with all three of these dramatic responses resulting in > 3 years of progression-free survival from the time of treatment. Analyses of post-treatment surgical specimens (group B, n = 12) showed that DNX-2401 replicates and spreads within the tumor, documenting direct virus-induced oncolysis in patients. In addition to radiographic signs of inflammation, histopathologic examination of immune markers in post-treatment specimens showed tumor infiltration by CD8 and T-bet cells, and transmembrane immunoglobulin mucin-3 downregulation after treatment. Analyses of patient-derived cell lines for damage-associated molecular patterns revealed induction of immunogenic cell death in tumor cells after DNX-2401 administration. Conclusion Treatment with DNX-2401 resulted in dramatic responses with long-term survival in recurrent high-grade gliomas that are probably due to direct oncolytic effects of the virus followed by elicitation of an immune-mediated antiglioma response.