The binding of Varp to VAMP7 traps VAMP7 in a closed, fusogenically inactive conformation.

SNAREs provide energy and specificity to membrane fusion events. Fusogenic trans-SNARE complexes are assembled from glutamine-contributing SNAREs (Q-SNAREs) embedded in one membrane and an arginine-contributing SNARE (R-SNARE) embedded in the other. Regulation of membrane fusion events is crucial for intracellular trafficking. We identify the endosomal protein Varp as an R-SNARE-binding regulator of SNARE complex formation. Varp colocalizes with and binds to VAMP7, an R-SNARE that is involved in both endocytic and secretory pathways. We present the structure of the second ankyrin repeat domain of mammalian Varp in complex with the cytosolic portion of VAMP7. The VAMP7-SNARE motif is trapped between Varp and the VAMP7 longin domain, and hence Varp kinetically inhibits the ability of VAMP7 to form SNARE complexes. This inhibition will be increased when Varp can also bind to other proteins present on the same membrane as VAMP7, such as Rab32-GTP

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