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.

No abstract

The discovery of a gene network regulating lysosomal biogenesis and its transcriptional regulator TFEB revealed that cells monitor lysosomal function and respond to degradation requirements and environmental cues. Here, we report the identification of transcription factor E3 (TFE3) as another regulator of lysosomal homeostasis that induced expression of genes encoding proteins involved in autophagy and lysosomal biogenesis in ARPE-19 cells in response to starvation and lysosomal stress. We found that in nutrient-replete cells, TFE3 was recruited to lysosomes through interaction with active Rag GTPases and exhibited mTORC1-dependent phosphorylation. Phosphorylated TFE3 was retained in the cytosol through its interaction with the cytosolic chaperone 14-3-3. Following starvation, TFE3 rapidly translocated to the nucleus and bound to the CLEAR elements present in the promoter region of many lysosomal genes, thereby inducing lysosomal biogenesis. Depletion of endogenous TFE3 entirely abolished the response of ARPE-19 cells to starvation, suggesting that TFE3 plays a critical role in nutrient sensing and regulation of energy metabolism. Furthermore, overexpression of TFE3 triggered lysosomal exocytosis and resulted in efficient cellular clearance in a cellular model of a lysosomal storage disorder, Pompe disease, thus identifying TFE3 as a potential therapeutic target for the treatment of lysosomal disorders.

Pima subjects homozygous for the Trp64Arg beta 3-adrenergic-receptor mutation have an earlier onset of NIDDM and tend to have a lower resting metabolic rate. This mutation may accelerate the onset of NIDDM by altering the balance of energy metabolism in visceral adipose tissue.

Familial Mediterranean fever (FMF) is an inherited disorder characterized by recurrent episodes of fever and inflammation. Most patients with FMF carry missense mutations in the C-terminal half of the pyrin protein. To study the physiologic role of pyrin, we generated mice expressing a truncated pyrin molecule that, similar to FMF patients, retains the full PYRIN domain. Bacterial lipopolysaccharide (LPS) induces accentuated body temperatures and increased lethality in homozygous mutant mice. When stimulated, macrophages from these mice produce increased amounts of activated caspase-1 and, consequently, elevated levels of mature IL-1beta. Full-length pyrin competes in vitro with caspase-1 for binding to ASC, a known caspase-1 activator. Apoptosis is impaired in macrophages from pyrin-truncation mice through an IL-1-independent pathway. These data support a critical role for pyrin in the innate immune response, possibly by acting on ASC, and suggest a biologic basis for the selection of hypomorphic pyrin variants in man.

The activation of transcription factors is critical to ensure an effective defense against pathogens. In this study we identify a critical and complementary role of the transcription factors TFEB and TFE3 in innate immune response. By using a combination of chromatin immunoprecipitation, CRISPR-Cas9-mediated genome-editing technology, and in vivo models, we determined that TFEB and TFE3 collaborate with each other in activated macrophages and microglia to promote efficient autophagy induction, increased lysosomal biogenesis, and transcriptional upregulation of numerous proinflammatory cytokines. Furthermore, secretion of key mediators of the inflammatory response (CSF2, IL1B, IL2, and IL27), macrophage differentiation (CSF1), and macrophage infiltration and migration to sites of inflammation (CCL2) was significantly reduced in TFEB and TFE3 deficient cells. These new insights provide us with a deeper understanding of the transcriptional regulation of the innate immune response.