Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition)

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. For example, 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 versus those that measure fl ux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process including the amount and rate of cargo sequestered and degraded). In particular, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation must be differentiated from stimuli that increase autophagic activity, defi ned as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (inmost 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 fi eld 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. It is worth emphasizing here that lysosomal digestion is a stage of autophagy and evaluating its competence is a crucial part of the evaluation of autophagic flux, or complete autophagy. 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. Along these lines, because of the potential for pleiotropic effects due to blocking autophagy through genetic manipulation it is imperative to delete or knock down more than one autophagy-related gene. In addition, some individual Atg proteins, or groups of proteins, are involved in other cellular pathways so not all Atg proteins can be used as a specific marker for an autophagic process. 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

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)1.

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

Growth hormone receptor antagonism downregulates ATP-binding cassette transporters contributing to improved drug efficacy against melanoma and hepatocarcinoma in vivo

Knockdown of GH receptor (GHR) in melanoma cells in vitro downregulates ATP-binding cassette-containing (ABC) transporters and sensitizes them to anti-cancer drug treatments. Here we aimed to determine whether a GHR antagonist (GHRA) could control cancer growth by sensitizing tumors to therapy through downregulation of ABC transporters in vivo. We intradermally inoculated Fluc-B16-F10 mouse melanoma cells into GHA mice, transgenic for a GHR antagonist (GHRA), and observed a marked reduction in tumor size, mass and tumoral GH signaling. Moreover, constitutive GHRA production in the transgenic mice significantly improved the response to cisplatin treatment by suppressing expression of multiple ABC transporters and sensitizing the tumors to the drug. We confirmed that presence of a GHRA and not a mere absence of GH is essential for this chemo-sensitizing effect using Fluc-B16-F10 allografts in GH knockout (GHKO) mice, where tumor growth was reduced relative to that in GH-sufficient controls but did not sensitize the tumor to cisplatin. We extended our investigation to hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) using human HCC cells in vitro and a syngeneic mouse model of HCC with Hepa1-6 allografts in GHA mice. Gene expression analyses and drug-efflux assays confirm that blocking GH significantly suppresses the levels of ABC transporters and improves the efficacy of sorafenib towards almost complete tumor clearance. Human patient data for melanoma and HCC show that GHR RNA levels correlate with ABC transporter expression. Collectively, our results validate in vivo that combination of a GHRA with currently available anti-cancer therapies can be effective in attacking cancer drug resistance

Long-term safety and efficacy of patisiran for hereditary transthyretin-mediated amyloidosis with polyneuropathy: 12-month results of an open-label extension study

Background: Hereditary transthyretin-mediated amyloidosis is a rare, inherited, progressive disease caused by mutations in the transthyretin (TTR) gene. We assessed the safety and efficacy of long-term treatment with patisiran, an RNA interference therapeutic that inhibits TTR production, in patients with hereditary transthyretin-mediated amyloidosis with polyneuropathy. Methods: This multicentre, open-label extension (OLE) trial enrolled patients at 43 hospitals or clinical centres in 19 countries as of Sept 24, 2018. Patients were eligible if they had completed the phase 3 APOLLO or phase 2 OLE parent studies and tolerated the study drug. Eligible patients from APOLLO (patisiran and placebo groups) and the phase 2 OLE (patisiran group) studies enrolled in this global OLE trial and received patisiran 0·3 mg/kg by intravenous infusion every 3 weeks with plans to continue to do so for up to 5 years. Efficacy assessments included measures of polyneuropathy (modified Neuropathy Impairment Score +7 [mNIS+7]), quality of life, autonomic symptoms, nutritional status, disability, ambulation status, motor function, and cardiac stress, with analysis by study groups (APOLLO-placebo, APOLLO-patisiran, phase 2 OLE patisiran) based on allocation in the parent trial. The global OLE is ongoing with no new enrolment, and current findings are based on the interim analysis of the patients who had completed 12-month efficacy assessments as of the data cutoff. Safety analyses included all patients who received one or more dose of patisiran up to the data cutoff. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02510261. Findings: Between July 13, 2015, and Aug 21, 2017, of 212 eligible patients, 211 were enrolled: 137 patients from the APOLLO-patisiran group, 49 from the APOLLO-placebo group, and 25 from the phase 2 OLE patisiran group. At the data cutoff on Sept 24, 2018, 126 (92%) of 137 patients from the APOLLO-patisiran group, 38 (78%) of 49 from the APOLLO-placebo group, and 25 (100%) of 25 from the phase 2 OLE patisiran group had completed 12-month assessments. At 12 months, improvements in mNIS+7 with patisiran were sustained from parent study baseline with treatment in the global OLE (APOLLO-patisiran mean change –4·0, 95 % CI –7·7 to −0·3; phase 2 OLE patisiran –4·7, –11·9 to 2·4). Mean mNIS+7 score improved from global OLE enrolment in the APOLLO-placebo group (mean change from global OLE enrolment −1·4, 95% CI –6·2 to 3·5). Overall, 204 (97%) of 211 patients reported adverse events, 82 (39%) reported serious adverse events, and there were 23 (11%) deaths. Serious adverse events were more frequent in the APOLLO-placebo group (28 [57%] of 49) than in the APOLLO-patisiran (48 [35%] of 137) or phase 2 OLE patisiran (six [24%] of 25) groups. The most common treatment-related adverse event was mild or moderate infusion-related reactions. The frequency of deaths in the global OLE was higher in the APOLLO-placebo group (13 [27%] of 49), who had a higher disease burden than the APOLLO-patisiran (ten [7%] of 137) and phase 2 OLE patisiran (0 of 25) groups. Interpretation: In this interim 12-month analysis of the ongoing global OLE study, patisiran appeared to maintain efficacy with an acceptable safety profile in patients with hereditary transthyretin-mediated amyloidosis with polyneuropathy. Continued long-term follow-up will be important for the overall assessment of safety and efficacy with patisiran. Funding: Alnylam Pharmaceuticals