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.

Mutations in the leucine-rich repeat kinase 2 gene (LRRK2) cause late-onset Parkinson's disease indistinguishable from idiopathic disease. The mechanisms whereby missense alterations in the LRRK2 gene initiate neurodegeneration remain unknown. Here, we demonstrate that seven of 10 suspected familial-linked mutations result in increased kinase activity. Functional and disease-associated mutations in conserved residues reveal the critical link between intrinsic guanosine triphosphatase (GTPase) activity and downstream kinase activity. LRRK2 kinase activity requires GTPase activity, whereas GTPase activity functions independently of kinase activity. Both LRRK2 kinase and GTPase activity are required for neurotoxicity and potentiate peroxide-induced cell death, although LRRK2 does not function as a canonical MAP-kinase-kinase-kinase. These results suggest a link between LRRK2 kinase activity and pathogenic mechanisms relating to neurodegeneration, further supporting a gain-of-function role for LRRK2 mutations.

Parkinson disease is a common neurodegenerative disorder characterized by the loss of dopaminergic neurons and the presence of intracytoplasmic-ubiquitinated inclusions (Lewy bodies). Mutations in alpha-synuclein (A53T, A30P) and parkin cause familial Parkinson disease. Both these proteins are found in Lewy bodies. The absence of Lewy bodies in patients with parkin mutations suggests that parkin might be required for the formation of Lewy bodies. Here we show that parkin interacts with and ubiquitinates the alpha-synuclein-interacting protein, synphilin-1. Co-expression of alpha-synuclein, synphilin-1 and parkin result in the formation of Lewy-body-like ubiquitin-positive cytosolic inclusions. We further show that familial-linked mutations in parkin disrupt the ubiquitination of synphilin-1 and the formation of the ubiquitin-positive inclusions. These results provide a molecular basis for the ubiquitination of Lewy-body-associated proteins and link parkin and alpha-synuclein in a common pathogenic mechanism through their interaction with synphilin-1.

Parkin catalyzes mitochondrial ubiquitination, recruiting autophagic components that clear damaged mitochondria. Defects in this pathway are implicated in Parkinson's disease.

It is widely accepted that the familial Parkinson's disease (PD)-linked gene product, parkin, functions as a ubiquitin ligase involved in protein turnover via the ubiquitin-proteasome system. Substrates ubiquitinated by parkin are hence thought to be destined for proteasomal degradation. Because we demonstrated previously that parkin interacts with and ubiquitinates synphilin-1, we initially expected synphilin-1 degradation to be enhanced in the presence of parkin. Contrary to our expectation, we found that synphilin-1 is normally ubiquitinated by parkin in a nonclassical, proteasomal-independent manner that involves lysine 63 (K63)-linked polyubiquitin chain formation. Parkin-mediated degradation of synphilin-1 occurs appreciably only at an unusually high parkin to synphilin-1 expression ratio or when primed for lysine 48 (K48)-linked ubiquitination. In addition we found that parkin-mediated ubiquitination of proteins within Lewy-body-like inclusions formed by the coexpression of synphilin-1, ␣-synuclein, and parkin occurs predominantly via K63 linkages and that the formation of these inclusions is enhanced by K63-linked ubiquitination. Our results suggest that parkin is a dual-function ubiquitin ligase and that K63-linked ubiquitination of synphilin-1 by parkin may be involved in the formation of Lewy body inclusions associated with PD.

Although ubiquitin-enriched protein inclusions represent an almost invariant feature of neurodegenerative diseases, the mechanism underlying their biogenesis remains unclear. In particular, whether the topology of ubiquitin linkages influences the dynamics of inclusions is not well explored. Here, we report that lysine 48 (K48)- and lysine 63 (K63)-linked polyubiquitination, as well as monoubiquitin modification contribute to the biogenesis of inclusions. K63-linked polyubiquitin is the most consistent enhancer of inclusions formation. Under basal conditions, ectopic expression of K63 mutant ubiquitin in cultured cells promotes the accumulation of proteins and the formation of intracellular inclusions in the apparent absence of proteasome impairment. When co-expressed with disease-associated tau and SOD1 mutants, K63 ubiquitin mutant facilitates the formation of tau- and SOD-1-positive inclusions. Moreover, K63-linked ubiquitination was found to selectively facilitate the clearance of inclusions via autophagy. These data indicate that K63-linked ubiquitin chains may represent a common denominator underlying inclusions biogenesis, as well as a general cellular strategy for defining cargo destined for the autophagic system. Collectively, our results provide a novel mechanistic route that underlies the life cycle of an inclusion body. Harnessing this pathway may offer innovative approaches in the treatment of neurodegenerative disorders.