Subcellular concentrations of sugar alcohols and sugars in relation to phloem translocation in Plantago major, Plantago maritima, Prunus persica, and Apium graveolens

Sugar and sugar alcohol concentrations were analyzed in subcellular compartments of mesophyll cells, in the apoplast, and in the phloem sap of leaves of Plantago major (common plantain), Plantago maritima (sea plantain), Prunus persica (peach) and Apium graveolens (celery). In addition to sucrose, common plantain, sea plantain, and peach also translocated substantial amounts of sorbitol, whereas celery translocated mannitol as well. Sucrose was always present in vacuole and cytosol of mesophyll cells, whereas sorbitol and mannitol were found in vacuole, stroma, and cytosol in all cases except for sea plantain. The concentration of sorbitol, mannitol and sucrose in phloem sap was 2- to 40-fold higher than that in the cytosol of mesophyll cells. Apoplastic carbohydrate concentrations in all species tested were in the low millimolar range versus high millimolar concentrations in symplastic compartments. Therefore, the concentration ratios between the apoplast and the phloem were very strong, ranging between 20- to 100-fold for sorbitol and mannitol, and between 200- and 2000-fold for sucrose. The woody species, peach, showed the smallest concentration ratios between the cytosol of mesophyll cells and the phloem as well as between the apoplast and the phloem, suggesting a mixture of apoplastic and symplastic phloem loading, in contrast to the herbal plant species (common plantain, sea plantain, celery) which likely exhibit an active loading mode for sorbitol and mannitol as well as sucrose from the apoplast into the phloem

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