Selective Autophagy of Mitochondria on a Ubiquitin-Endoplasmic-Reticulum Platform

The dynamics and coordination between autophagy machinery and selective receptors during mitophagy are unknown. Also unknown is whether mitophagy depends on pre-existing membranes or is triggered on the surface of damaged mitochondria. Using a ubiquitin-dependent mitophagy inducer, the lactone ivermectin, we have combined genetic and imaging experiments to address these questions. Ubiquitination of mitochondrial fragments is required the earliest, followed by auto-phosphorylation of TBK1. Next, early essential autophagy proteins FIP200 and ATG13 act at different steps, whereas ULK1 and ULK2 are dispensable. Receptors act temporally and mechanistically upstream of ATG13 but downstream of FIP200. The VPS34 complex functions at the omegasome step. ATG13 and optineurin target mitochondria in a discontinuous oscillatory way, suggesting multiple initiation events. Targeted ubiquitinated mitochondria are cradled by endoplasmic reticulum (ER) strands even without functional autophagy machinery and mitophagy adaptors. We propose that damaged mitochondria are ubiquitinated and dynamically encased in ER strands, providing platforms for formation of the mitophagosomes

Neuronal lysosomal dysfunction releases exosomes harboring APP C-terminal fragments and unique lipid signatures

Defects in endolysosomal and autophagic functions are increasingly viewed as key pathological features of neurodegenerative disorders. A master regulator of these functions is phosphatidylinositol-3-phosphate (PI3P), a phospholipid synthesized primarily by class III PI 3-kinase Vps34. Here we report that disruption of neuronal Vps34 function in vitro and in vivo impairs autophagy, lysosomal degradation as well as lipid metabolism, causing endolysosomal membrane damage. PI3P deficiency also promotes secretion of unique exosomes enriched for undigested lysosomal substrates, including amyloid precursor protein C-terminal fragments (APP-CTFs), specific sphingolipids, and the phospholipid bis(monoacylglycero)phosphate (BMP), which normally resides in the internal vesicles of endolysosomes. Secretion of these exosomes requires neutral sphingomyelinase 2 and sphingolipid synthesis. Our results reveal a homeostatic response counteracting lysosomal dysfunction via secretion of atypical exosomes eliminating lysosomal waste and define exosomal APP-CTFs and BMP as candidate biomarkers for endolysosomal dysfunction associated with neurodegenerative disorders.Fan Wang for the kind gift of the Pi3kc3flox/flox mice. We thank Basant Abdulrahman and Hermann Schaetzl for providing the gene-edited Atg5 KO N2a cells. We are also grateful to Zhenyu Yue, Ralph Nixon, and Jean Gruenberg for the kind gift of anti-Atg14L, Cathepsin D, and BMP antibodies, respectively. We thank Thomas Südhof for sharing Cre recombinase lentiviruses. We thank the OCS Microscopy Core of New York University Langone Medical Center for the support of the EM work and Rocio Perez-Gonzalez and Efrat Levy of New York University for their support during optimization of the brain exosome isolation technique. We thank Elizabeta Micevska for the maintenance and genotyping of the animal colony and Bowen Zhou for the preliminary lipidomic analysis of conditional Pi3kc3 cKO mice. We also thank Rebecca Williams and Catherine Marquer for critically reading the manuscript. This work was supported by grants from the Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (PD/BD/105915/2014 to A.M.M.); the National Institute of Health (R01 NS056049 to G.D.P., transferred to Ron Liem, Columbia University; T32-MH015174 to Rene Hen (Z.M.L.)). Z.M.L. and R.B.C. received pilot grants from ADRC grant P50 AG008702 to S.A.S.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

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

GABARAP sequesters the FLCN-FNIP tumor suppressor complex to couple autophagy with lysosomal biogenesis

Adaptive changes in lysosomal capacity are driven by the transcription factors TFEB and TFE3 in response to increased autophagic flux and endolysosomal stress, yet the molecular details of their activation are unclear. LC3 and GABARAP members of the ATG8 protein family are required for selective autophagy and sensing perturbation within the endolysosomal system. Here, we show that during the conjugation of ATG8 to single membranes (CASM), Parkin-dependent mitophagy, and Salmonella-induced xenophagy, the membrane conjugation of GABARAP, but not LC3, is required for activation of TFEB/TFE3 to control lysosomal capacity. GABARAP directly binds to a previously unidentified LC3-interacting motif (LIR) in the FLCN/FNIP tumor suppressor complex and mediates sequestration to GABARAP-conjugated membrane compartments. This disrupts FLCN/FNIP GAP function toward RagC/D, resulting in impaired substrate-specific mTOR-dependent phosphorylation of TFEB. Thus, the GABARAP-FLCN/FNIP-TFEB axis serves as a molecular sensor that coordinates lysosomal homeostasis with perturbations and cargo flux within the autophagy-lysosomal network