TY - JOUR
T1 - Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)
1
AU - Collaboration
AU - Klionsky, Daniel J.
AU - Abdel-Aziz, Amal Kamal
AU - Abdelfatah, Sara
AU - Abdellatif, Mahmoud
AU - Abdoli, Asghar
AU - Abel, Steffen
AU - Abeliovich, Hagai
AU - Abildgaard, Marie H.
AU - Abudu, Yakubu Princely
AU - Acevedo-Arozena, Abraham
AU - Adamopoulos, Iannis E.
AU - Adeli, Khosrow
AU - Adolph, Timon E.
AU - Adornetto, Annagrazia
AU - Aflaki, Elma
AU - Agam, Galila
AU - Agarwal, Anupam
AU - Aggarwal, Bharat B.
AU - Agnello, Maria
AU - Agostinis, Patrizia
AU - Agrewala, Javed N.
AU - Agrotis, Alexander
AU - Aguilar, Patricia V.
AU - Ahmad, S. Tariq
AU - Ahmed, Zubair M.
AU - Ahumada-Castro, Ulises
AU - Aits, Sonja
AU - Aizawa, Shu
AU - Akkoc, Yunus
AU - Akoumianaki, Tonia
AU - Akpinar, Hafize Aysin
AU - Al-Abd, Ahmed M.
AU - Al-Akra, Lina
AU - Al-Gharaibeh, Abeer
AU - Alaoui-Jamali, Moulay A.
AU - Alberti, Simon
AU - Alcocer-Gómez, Elísabet
AU - Alessandri, Cristiano
AU - Ali, Muhammad
AU - Alim Al-Bari, M. Abdul
AU - Aliwaini, Saeb
AU - Alizadeh, Javad
AU - Almacellas, Eugènia
AU - Almasan, Alexandru
AU - Alonso, Alicia
AU - Alonso, Guillermo D.
AU - Altan-Bonnet, Nihal
AU - Altieri, Dario C.
AU - Álvarez, Élida M.C.
AU - Law, Ka Wai Helen
AU - Tam, Shing Yau
N1 - Funding Information:
This work was supported by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences [GM131919]. Due to space and other limitations, it is not possible to include all other sources of financial support. In a rapidly expanding and highly dynamic field such as autophagy, it is possible that some authors who should have been included on this manuscript have been missed. D.J.K. extends his apologies to researchers in the field of autophagy who, due to oversight or any other reason, could not be included on this manuscript.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
PY - 2021/1
Y1 - 2021/1
N2 - In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field.
AB - In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field.
KW - Autophagosome
KW - cancer
KW - flux
KW - LC3
KW - lysosome
KW - macroautophagy
KW - neurodegeneration
KW - phagophore
KW - stress
KW - vacuole
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85102619204&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/15548627.2020.1797280
DO - 10.1080/15548627.2020.1797280
M3 - Review article
C2 - 33634751
AN - SCOPUS:85102619204
SN - 1554-8627
VL - 17
SP - 1
EP - 382
JO - Autophagy
JF - Autophagy
IS - 1
ER -