Rab27a is a key component of the secretory machinery of azurophilic granules in granulocytes

Neutrophils kill micro-organisms using microbicidal products that they release into the phagosome or into the extracellular space. The secretory machinery utilized by neutrophils is poorly characterized. We show that the small GTPase Rab27a is an essential component of the secretory machinery of azurophilic granules in granulocytes. Rab27a-deficient mice have impaired secretion of MPO (myeloperoxidase) into the plasma in response to lipopolysaccharide. Cell fractionation analysis revealed that Rab27a and the Rab27a effector protein JFC1/Slp1 (synaptotagmin-like protein 1) are distributed principally in the low-density fraction containing a minor population of MPO-containing granules. By immunofluorescence microscopy, we detected Rab27a and JFC1/Slp1 in a minor subpopulation of MPO-containing granules. Interference with the JFC1/Slp1–Rab27a secretory machinery impaired secretion of MPO in permeabilized neutrophils. The expression of Rab27a was dramatically increased when promyelocytic HL-60 cells were differentiated into granulocytes but not when they were differentiated into monocytes. Down-regulation of Rab27a in HL-60 cells by RNA interference did not affect JFC1/Slp1 expression but significantly decreased the secretion of MPO. Neither Rab27a nor JFC1/Slp1 was integrated into the phagolysosome membrane during phagocytosis. Neutrophils from Rab27a-deficient mice efficiently phagocytose zymosan opsonized particles and deliver MPO to the phagosome. We conclude that Rab27a and JFC1/Slp1 permit MPO release into the surrounding milieu and constitute key components of the secretory machinery of azurophilic granules in granulocytes. Our results suggest that the granules implicated in cargo release towards the surrounding milieu are molecularly and mechanistically different from those involved in their release towards the phagolysosome

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

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