Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy in higher eukaryotes

Research in autophagy continues to accelerate,(1) and as a result many new scientists are entering the field. Accordingly, it is important to establish a standard set of criteria for monitoring macroautophagy in different organisms. Recent reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose.(2,3) There are many useful and convenient methods that can be used to monitor macroautophagy in yeast, but relatively few in other model systems, and there is much confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure macroautophagy in higher eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers of autophagosomes versus those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway; thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from fully functional autophagy that includes delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of the methods that can be used by investigators who are attempting to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as by reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that investigate these processes. This set of guidelines is 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 verify an autophagic response.

Increasing Scientific Confidence in Adverse Outcome Pathways: Application of Tailored Bradford-Hill Considerations for Evaluating Weight of Evidence.

Systematic consideration of scientific support is a critical element in developing and, ultimately, using adverse outcome pathways (AOPs) for various regulatory applications. Though weight of evidence (WoE) analysis has been proposed as a basis for assessment of the maturity and level of confidence in an AOP, methodologies and tools are still being formalized. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Users' Handbook Supplement to the Guidance Document for Developing and Assessing AOPs (OECD 2014a; hereafter referred to as the OECD AOP Handbook) provides tailored Bradford-Hill (BH) considerations for systematic assessment of confidence in a given AOP. These considerations include (1) biological plausibility and (2) empirical support (dose-response, temporality, and incidence) for Key Event Relationships (KERs), and (3) essentiality of key events (KEs). Here, we test the application of these tailored BH considerations and the guidance outlined in the OECD AOP Handbook using a number of case examples to increase experience in more transparently documenting rationales for assigned levels of confidence to KEs and KERs, and to promote consistency in evaluation within and across AOPs. The major lessons learned from experience are documented, and taken together with the case examples, should contribute to better common understanding of the nature and form of documentation required to increase confidence in the application of AOPs for specific uses. Based on the tailored BH considerations and defining questions, a prototype quantitative model for assessing the WoE of an AOP using tools of multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) is described. The applicability of the approach is also demonstrated using the case example aromatase inhibition leading to reproductive dysfunction in fish. Following the acquisition of additional experience in the development and assessment of AOPs, further refinement of parameterization of the model through expert elicitation is recommended. Overall, the application of quantitative WoE approaches hold promise to enhance the rigor, transparency and reproducibility for AOP WoE determinations and may play an important role in delineating areas where research would have the greatest impact on improving the overall confidence in the AOP.