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

Cellular senescence is an extremely stable form of cell cycle arrest that limits the proliferation of damaged cells and may act as a natural barrier to cancer progression. In this study, we describe a distinct heterochromatic structure that accumulates in senescent human fibroblasts, which we designated senescence-associated heterochromatic foci (SAHF). SAHF formation coincides with the recruitment of heterochromatin proteins and the retinoblastoma (Rb) tumor suppressor to E2F-responsive promoters and is associated with the stable repression of E2F target genes. Notably, both SAHF formation and the silencing of E2F target genes depend on the integrity of the Rb pathway and do not occur in reversibly arrested cells. These results provide a molecular explanation for the stability of the senescent state, as well as new insights into the action of Rb as a tumor suppressor.

Cellular senescence is a cell state implicated in various physiological processes and a wide spectrum of age-related diseases. Recently, interest in therapeutically targeting senescence to improve healthy aging and age-related disease, otherwise known as senotherapy, has been growing rapidly. Thus, the accurate detection of senescent cells, especially in vivo, is essential. Here, we present a consensus from the International Cell Senescence Association (ICSA), defining and discussing key cellular and molecular features of senescence and offering recommendations on how to use them as biomarkers. We also present a resource tool to facilitate the identification of genes linked with senescence, SeneQuest (available at http://Senequest.net). Lastly, we propose an algorithm to accurately assess and quantify senescence, both in cultured cells and in vivo. Cellular Senescence: Walking a Line between Life and Death Cell states link both physiological and stress signals to tissue homeostasis and organismal health. In both cases, the outcomes vary and are determined by the signal characteristics (type, magnitude, and duration), spatiotemporal parameters (where and when), and cellular capacity to respond (Gorgoulis et al., 2018). In the case of potentially damaging stress, damage is reversed and the structural and functional integrity of cells restored. Alternatively, damage can be irreversible, and cells activate death mechanisms mainly to restrict the impact on tissue degeneration. Between these extremes, cells can acquire other states, often associated with survival but also with permanent structural and functional changes. An example is the non-proliferative but viable state, distinct from G0 quiescence and terminal differentiation, termed cellular senescence (Rodier and Campisi, 2011). Formally described in 1961 by Hayflick and colleagues, cellular senescence, derived from the latin word senex meaning ''old'' (Hayflick and Moorhead, 1961), was originally observed in normal diploid cells that