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

Aims/hypothesisThe aim of the study was to compare the effect of six (A6 regimen) vs two meals a day, breakfast and lunch (B2 regimen), on body weight, hepatic fat content (HFC), insulin resistance and beta cell function.MethodsIn a randomised, open, crossover, single-centre study (conducted in Prague, Czech Republic), we assigned 54 patients with type 2 diabetes treated with oral hypoglycaemic agents, both men and women, age 30–70 years, BMI 27–50 kg/m2 and HbA1c 6–11.8% (42–105 mmol/mol), to follow two regimens of a hypoenergetic diet, A6 and B2, each for 12 weeks. Randomisation and allocation to trial groups (n = 27 and n = 27) were carried out by a central computer system. Individual calculations of energy requirements for both regimens were based on the formula: (resting energy expenditure × 1.5) − 2,092 kJ. The diet in both regimens had the same macronutrient and energy content. HFC was measured by proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Insulin sensitivity was measured by isoglycaemic–hyperinsulinaemic clamp and calculated by mathematical modelling as oral glucose insulin sensitivity (OGIS). Beta cell function was assessed during standard meal tests by C-peptide deconvolution and was quantified with a mathematical model. For statistical analysis, 2 × 2 crossover ANOVA was used.ResultsThe intention-to-treat analysis included all participants (n = 54). Body weight decreased in both regimens (p < 0.001), more for B2 (−2.3 kg; 95% CI −2.7, −2.0 kg for A6 vs −3.7 kg; 95% CI −4.1, −3.4 kg for B2; p < 0.001). HFC decreased in response to both regimens (p < 0.001), more for B2 (−0.03%; 95% CI −0.033%, −0.027% for A6 vs −0.04%; 95% CI −0.041%, −0.035% for B2; p = 0.009). Fasting plasma glucose and C-peptide levels decreased in both regimens (p < 0.001), more for B2 (p = 0.004 and p = 0.04, respectively). Fasting plasma glucagon decreased with the B2 regimen (p < 0.001), whereas it increased (p = 0.04) for the A6 regimen (p < 0.001). OGIS increased in both regimens (p < 0.01), more for B2 (p = 0.01). No adverse events were observed for either regimen.Conclusions/interpretationEating only breakfast and lunch reduced body weight, HFC, fasting plasma glucose, C-peptide and glucagon, and increased OGIS, more than the same caloric restriction split into six meals. These results suggest that, for type 2 diabetic patients on a hypoenergetic diet, eating larger breakfasts and lunches may be more beneficial than six smaller meals during the day.Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01277471, completed.Funding Grant NT/11238-4 from Ministry of Health, Prague, Czech Republic and the Agency of Charles University – GAUK No 702312.

Bombesin-like receptor 3 (BRS3) is an orphan G protein-coupled receptor that regulates energy homeostasis and heart rate. We report that acute activation of Brs3 -expressing neurons in the dorsomedial hypothalamus (DMH Brs3 ) increased body temperature (Tb), brown adipose tissue temperature, energy expenditure, heart rate and blood pressure, with no effect on food intake or physical activity. Conversely, activation of Brs3 neurons in the paraventricular nucleus of the hypothalamus (PVH Brs3 ) had no effect on Tb or energy expenditure, but suppressed food intake. Inhibition of DMH Brs3 neurons decreased Tb and energy expenditure, suggesting a necessary role in Tb regulation. We found that the preoptic area provides major input (excitatory and inhibitory) to DMH Brs3 neurons. Optogenetic stimulation of DMH Brs3 projections to the raphe pallidus (RPa) increased Tb. Thus, DMH Brs3 →RPa neurons regulate Tb, energy expenditure and heart rate, and PVH Brs3 neurons regulate food intake. Brs3 expression is a useful marker for delineating energy metabolism regulatory circuitry.

Highlights d We develop the thermoneutral point (TNP) concept to describe mouse thermoregulation d Energy expenditure increases below and body temperature increases above the TNP d The mouse TNP is 29 C in light phase and 33 C in dark phase, a diurnal change of 4 C d Studying mice strictly ''at thermoneutrality'' is not feasible