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.

No abstract

Developmental Cell 5 (2003) 539-545. doi:10.1016/S1534-5807(03)00296-XReceived by publisher: 0000-01-01Harvest Date: 2016-01-04 12:23:40DOI: 10.1016/S1534-5807(03)00296-XPage Range: 539-54

We used the dye N-(3-triethylammoniumpropyl)-4-(p-diethylaminophenylhexatrienyl) pyridinium dibromide (FM4-64) and a fusion protein, consisting of the green fluorescent protein appended to the peroxisomal targeting signal, Ser-Lys-Leu (SKL), to label the vacuolar membrane and the peroxisomal matrix, respectively, in living Pichia pastoris cells and followed by fluorescence microscopy the morphological and kinetic intermediates in the vacuolar degradation of peroxisomes by microautophagy and macroautophagy. Structures corresponding to the intermediates were also identified by electron microscopy. The kinetics of appearance and disappearance of these intermediates is consistent with a precursor–product relationship between intermediates, which form the basis of a model for microautophagy. Inhibitors affecting different steps of microautophagy did not impair peroxisome delivery to the vacuole via macroautophagy, although inhibition of vacuolar proteases affected the final vacuolar degradation of green fluorescent protein (S65T mutant version [GFP])-SKL via both autophagic pathways. P. pastoris mutants defective in peroxisome microautophagy (pag mutants) were isolated and characterized for the presence or absence of the intermediates. These mutants, comprising 6 complementation groups, support the model for microautophagy. Our studies indicate that the microautophagic degradation of peroxisomes proceeds via specific intermediates, whose generation and/or processing is controlled by PAG gene products, and shed light on the poorly understood phenomenon of peroxisome homeostasis.

The abundance of peroxisomes within a cell can rapidly decrease by selective autophagic degradation (also designated pexophagy). Studies in yeast species have shown that at least two modes of peroxisome degradation are employed, namely macropexophagy and micropexophagy. During macropexophagy, peroxisomes are individually sequestered by membranes, thus forming a pexophagosome. This structure fuses with the vacuolar membrane, resulting in exposure of the incorporated peroxisome to vacuolar hydrolases. During micropexophagy, a cluster of peroxisomes is enclosed by vacuolar membrane protrusions and/or segmented vacuoles as well as a newly formed membrane structure, the micropexophagy-specific membrane apparatus (MIPA), which mediates the enclosement of the vacuolar membrane. Subsequently, the engulfed peroxisome cluster is degraded. This review discusses the current state of knowledge of pexophagy with emphasis on studies on methylotrophic yeast species.

Microautophagy is a mode of autophagy in which the lysosomal or vacuolar membrane invaginates and engulfs target components. Oku et al. show that, upon a diauxic shift, yeast microautophagy involves recruitment of ESCRT proteins to the vacuolar membrane, including clathrin-interacting Vps27, and uptake of lipid droplets by the vacuole.

It remains controversial whether Dnm1/Drp1-mediated mitochondrial division is essential for mitophagy. Yamashita et al. show that Dnm1/Drp1-independent mitochondrial division occurs after formation of isolation membranes and in cooperation with autophagosome formation during mitophagy.