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

No abstract

There is growing evidence that dysbiosis of the gut microbiota is associated with the pathogenesis of both intestinal and extra-intestinal disorders. Intestinal disorders include inflammatory bowel disease, irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), and coeliac disease, while extra-intestinal disorders include allergy, asthma, metabolic syndrome, cardiovascular disease, and obesity.In many of these conditions, the mechanisms leading to disease development involves the pivotal mutualistic relationship between the colonic microbiota, their metabolic products, and the host immune system. The establishment of a ‘healthy’ relationship early in life appears to be critical to maintaining intestinal homeostasis. Whilst we do not yet have a clear understanding of what constitutes a ‘healthy’ colonic microbiota, a picture is emerging from many recent studies identifying particular bacterial species associated with a healthy microbiota. In particular, the bacterial species residing within the mucus layer of the colon, either through direct contact with host cells, or through indirect communication via bacterial metabolites, may influence whether host cellular homeostasis is maintained or whether inflammatory mechanisms are triggered. In addition to inflammation, there is some evidence that perturbations in the gut microbiota is involved with the development of colorectal cancer. In this case, dysbiosis may not be the most important factor, rather the products of interaction between diet and the microbiome. High-protein diets are thought to result in the production of carcinogenic metabolites from the colonic microbiota that may result in the induction of neoplasia in the colonic epithelium.Ever more sensitive metabolomics methodologies reveal a suite of small molecules produced in the microbiome which mimic or act as neurosignallers or neurotransmitters. Coupled with evidence that probiotic interventions may alter psychological endpoints in both humans and in rodent models, these data suggest that CNS-related co-morbidities frequently associated with GI disease may originate in the intestine as a result of microbial dysbiosis.This review outlines the current evidence showing the extent to which the gut microbiota contributes to the development of disease. Based on evidence to date, we can assess the potential to positively modulate the composition of the colonic microbiota and ameliorate disease activity through bacterial intervention.

Gammadelta T cells remain an enigma. They are capable of generating more unique antigen receptors than alphabeta T cells and B cells combined, yet their repertoire of antigen receptors is dominated by specific subsets that recognize a limited number of antigens. A variety of sometimes conflicting effector functions have been ascribed to them, yet their biological function(s) remains unclear. On the basis of studies of gammadelta T cells in infectious and autoimmune diseases, we argue that gammadelta T cells perform different functions according to their tissue distribution, antigen-receptor structure and local microenvironment; we also discuss how and at what stage of the immune response they become activated.

BackgroundGut microbiota composition and function are symbiotically linked with host health and altered in metabolic, inflammatory and neurodegenerative disorders. Three recognised mechanisms exist by which the microbiome influences the gut–brain axis: modification of autonomic/sensorimotor connections, immune activation, and neuroendocrine pathway regulation. We hypothesised interactions between circulating gut-derived microbial metabolites, and the blood–brain barrier (BBB) also contribute to the gut–brain axis. Propionate, produced from dietary substrates by colonic bacteria, stimulates intestinal gluconeogenesis and is associated with reduced stress behaviours, but its potential endocrine role has not been addressed.ResultsAfter demonstrating expression of the propionate receptor FFAR3 on human brain endothelium, we examined the impact of a physiologically relevant propionate concentration (1 μM) on BBB properties in vitro. Propionate inhibited pathways associated with non-specific microbial infections via a CD14-dependent mechanism, suppressed expression of LRP-1 and protected the BBB from oxidative stress via NRF2 (NFE2L2) signalling.ConclusionsTogether, these results suggest gut-derived microbial metabolites interact with the BBB, representing a fourth facet of the gut–brain axis that warrants further attention.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s40168-018-0439-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The human gastrointestinal (gut) microbiota comprises diverse and dynamic populations of bacteria, archaea, viruses, fungi, and protozoa, coexisting in a mutualistic relationship with the host. When intestinal homeostasis is perturbed, the function of the gastrointestinal tract and other organ systems, including the brain, can be compromised. The gut microbiota is proposed to contribute to blood-brain barrier disruption and the pathogenesis of neurodegenerative diseases. While progress is being made, a better understanding of interactions between gut microbes and host cells, and the impact these have on signaling from gut to brain is now required. In this review, we summarise current evidence of the impact gut microbes and their metabolites have on blood-brain barrier integrity and brain function, and the communication networks between the gastrointestinal tract and brain, which they may modulate. We also discuss the potential of microbiota modulation strategies as therapeutic tools for promoting and restoring brain health.

A hallmark of macroautophagy is the covalent lipidation of LC3 and insertion into the double‐membrane phagophore, which is driven by the ATG16L1/ATG5‐ATG12 complex. In contrast, non‐canonical autophagy is a pathway through which LC3 is lipidated and inserted into single membranes, particularly endolysosomal vacuoles during cell engulfment events such as LC3‐associated phagocytosis. Factors controlling the targeting of ATG16L1 to phagophores are dispensable for non‐canonical autophagy, for which the mechanism of ATG16L1 recruitment is unknown. Here we show that the WD repeat‐containing C‐terminal domain (WD40 CTD) of ATG16L1 is essential for LC3 recruitment to endolysosomal membranes during non‐canonical autophagy, but dispensable for canonical autophagy. Using this strategy to inhibit non‐canonical autophagy specifically, we show a reduction of MHC class II antigen presentation in dendritic cells from mice lacking the WD40 CTD. Further, we demonstrate activation of non‐canonical autophagy dependent on the WD40 CTD during influenza A virus infection. This suggests dependence on WD40 CTD distinguishes between macroautophagy and non‐canonical use of autophagy machinery.

SummaryBackgroundThe human virome consists of animal‐cell viruses causing transient infections, bacteriophage (phage) predators of bacteria and archaea, endogenous retroviruses and viruses causing persistent and latent infections. High‐throughput, inexpensive, sensitive sequencing methods and metagenomics now make it possible to study the contribution dsDNA, ssDNA and RNA virus‐like particles make to the human virome, and in particular the intestinal virome.AimTo review and evaluate the pioneering studies that have attempted to characterise the human virome and generated an increased interest in understanding how the intestinal virome might contribute to maintaining health, and the pathogenesis of chronic diseases.MethodsRelevant virome‐related articles were selected for review following extensive language‐ and date‐unrestricted, electronic searches of the literature.ResultsThe human intestinal virome is personalised and stable, and dominated by phages. It develops soon after birth in parallel with prokaryotic communities of the microbiota, becoming established during the first few years of life. By infecting specific populations of bacteria, phages can alter microbiota structure by killing host cells or altering their phenotype, enabling phages to contribute to maintaining intestinal homeostasis or microbial imbalance (dysbiosis), and the development of chronic infectious and autoimmune diseases including HIV infection and Crohn's disease, respectively.ConclusionsOur understanding of the intestinal virome is fragmented and requires standardised methods for virus isolation and sequencing to provide a more complete picture of the virome, which is key to explaining the basis of virome‐disease associations, and how enteric viruses can contribute to disease aetiologies and be rationalised as targets for interventions.