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.

The microtubule cytoskeleton and the mitotic spindle are highly dynamic structures, yet their sizes are remarkably constant, thus indicating that the growth and shrinkage of their constituent microtubules are finely balanced. This balance is achieved, in part, through kinesin-8 proteins (such as Kip3p in budding yeast and KLP67A in Drosophila) that destabilize microtubules. Here, we directly demonstrate that Kip3p destabilizes microtubules by depolymerizing them--accounting for the effects of kinesin-8 perturbations on microtubule and spindle length observed in fungi and metazoan cells. Furthermore, using single-molecule microscopy assays, we show that Kip3p has several properties that distinguish it from other depolymerizing kinesins, such as the kinesin-13 MCAK. First, Kip3p disassembles microtubules exclusively at the plus end and second, remarkably, Kip3p depolymerizes longer microtubules faster than shorter ones. These properties are consequences of Kip3p being a highly processive, plus-end-directed motor, both in vitro and in vivo. Length-dependent depolymerization provides a new mechanism for controlling the lengths of subcellular structures.

For high-fidelity chromosome segregation, kinetochores must be properly captured by spindle microtubules, but the mechanisms underlying initial kinetochore capture have remained elusive. Here we visualized individual kinetochore-microtubule interactions in Saccharomyces cerevisiae by regulating the activity of a centromere. Kinetochores are captured by the side of microtubules extending from spindle poles, and are subsequently transported poleward along them. The microtubule extension from spindle poles requires microtubule plus-end-tracking proteins and the Ran GDP/GTP exchange factor. Distinct kinetochore components are used for kinetochore capture by microtubules and for ensuring subsequent sister kinetochore bi-orientation on the spindle. Kar3, a kinesin-14 family member, is one of the regulators that promote transport of captured kinetochores along microtubules. During such transport, kinetochores ensure that they do not slide off their associated microtubules by facilitating the conversion of microtubule dynamics from shrinkage to growth at the plus ends. This conversion is promoted by the transport of Stu2 from the captured kinetochores to the plus ends of microtubules.