Quality control autophagy: a joint effort of ubiquitin, protein deacetylase and actin cytoskeleton.

Autophagy has been predominantly studied as a nonselective self-digestion process that recycles macromolecules and produces energy in response to starvation. However, autophagy independent of nutrient status has long been known to exist. Recent evidence suggests that this form of autophagy enforces intracellular quality control by selectively disposing of aberrant protein aggregates and damaged organelles--common denominators in various forms of neurodegenerative diseases. By definition, this form of autophagy, termed quality-control (QC) autophagy, must be different from nutrient-regulated autophagy in substrate selectivity, regulation and function. We have recently identified the ubiquitin-binding deacetylase, HDAC6, as a key component that establishes QC. HDAC6 is not required for autophagy activation per se; rather, it is recruited to ubiquitinated autophagic substrates where it stimulates autophagosome-lysosome fusion by promoting F-actin remodeling in a cortactin-dependent manner. Remarkably, HDAC6 and cortactin are dispensable for starvation-induced autophagy. These findings reveal that autophagosomes associated with QC are molecularly and biochemically distinct from those associated with starvation autophagy, thereby providing a new molecular framework to understand the emerging complexity of autophagy and therapeutic potential of this unique machinery.

Adults with autism spectrum disorders exhibit decreased sensitivity to reward parameters when making effort-based decisions.

BACKGROUND: Efficient effort expenditure to obtain rewards is critical for optimal goal-directed behavior and learning. Clinical observation suggests that individuals with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) may show dysregulated reward-based effort expenditure, but no behavioral study to date has assessed effort-based decision-making in ASD. METHODS: The current study compared a group of adults with ASD to a group of typically developing adults on the Effort Expenditure for Rewards Task (EEfRT), a behavioral measure of effort-based decision-making. In this task, participants were provided with the probability of receiving a monetary reward on a particular trial and asked to choose between either an "easy task" (less motoric effort) for a small, stable reward or a "hard task" (greater motoric effort) for a variable but consistently larger reward. RESULTS: Participants with ASD chose the hard task more frequently than did the control group, yet were less influenced by differences in reward value and probability than the control group. Additionally, effort-based decision-making was related to repetitive behavior symptoms across both groups. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that individuals with ASD may be more willing to expend effort to obtain a monetary reward regardless of the reward contingencies. More broadly, results suggest that behavioral choices may be less influenced by information about reward contingencies in individuals with ASD. This atypical pattern of effort-based decision-making may be relevant for understanding the heightened reward motivation for circumscribed interests in ASD.