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.

Strategic use of serology for the diagnosis of bovine tuberculosis after intradermal skin testing

Diagnostic tests based on cell-mediated immunity are used in programmes for eradication of bovine tuberculosis (Mycobacterium bovis). Serological assays could be applied as ancillary methods to detect infected animals. Our objective was to evaluate two serological techniques: M. bovis Ab Test (IDEXX, USA) and Enferplex™ TB assay (Enfer, Ireland) in animals tested simultaneously with the single and comparative intradermal tests and the interferon-gamma assay. This work was performed at two stages. First, a preliminary panel of samples collected prior to intradermal tests from tuberculosis-free (n=60) and M. bovis-infected herds (n=78) was assayed, obtaining high specificity: 100% (M. bovis Ab Test) and 98.3% (Enferplex TB assay) but low sensitivity (detection of M. bovis infected animals): 23.9% (M. bovis Ab Test) and 32.6% (Enferplex TB assay). Subsequently, the use of serological techniques was further studied in two herds with M. bovis infection (n=77) using samples collected prior to, and 72 h and 15 days after PPD inoculation. The highest level of detection of infected animals for serology was achieved at 15 days post-intradermal tests taking advantage of the anamnestic effect: 70.4% and 85.2% in herd A, and 66.7% and 83.3% in herd B, using M. bovis Ab Test and Enferplex TB assay, respectively. Quantitative results (average values obtained with M. bovis Ab Test ELISA and degree of positivity obtained with Enferplex TB assay) were higher in animals showing lesions compatible with tuberculosis. No significant differences were observed in the number of confirmed infected animals detected with either serological technique.