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

The two mannose 6-phosphate (M6P) receptors were identified because of their ability to bind M6P-containing soluble acid hydrolases in the Golgi and transport them to the endosomal-lysosomal system. During the past decade, we have started to understand the structural features of these receptors that allow them to do this job, and how the receptors themselves are sorted as they pass through various membrane-bound compartments. But trafficking of acid hydrolases is only part of the story. Evidence is emerging that one of the receptors can regulate cell growth and motility, and that it functions as a tumour suppressor.

Heterotrimeric G proteins are molecular switches that control signal transduction. Ligand-occupied, G protein-coupled receptors serve as the canonical guanine nucleotide exchange factors (GEFs) that activate heterotrimeric G proteins. A few unrelated nonreceptor GEFs have also been described, but little or nothing is known about their structure, mechanism of action, or cellular functions in mammals. We have discovered that GIV/Girdin serves as a nonreceptor GEF for G␣i through an evolutionarily conserved motif that shares sequence homology with the synthetic GEF peptide KB-752. Using the available structure of the KB-752⅐G␣i1 complex as a template, we modeled the G␣i-GIV interface and identified the key residues that are required to form it. Mutation of these key residues disrupts the interaction and impairs Akt enhancement, actin remodeling, and cell migration in cancer cells. Mechanistically, we demonstrate that the GEF motif is capable of activating as well as sequestering the G␣-subunit, thereby enhancing Akt signaling via the G␤␥-PI3K pathway. Recently, GIV has been implicated in cancer metastasis by virtue of its ability to enhance Akt activity and remodel the actin cytoskeleton during cancer invasion. Thus, the novel regulatory motif described here provides the structural and biochemical basis for the prometastatic features of GIV, making the functional disruption of this unique G␣i-GIV interface a promising target for therapy against cancer metastasis.cell migration ͉ Heterotrimeric G protein ͉ metastasis ͉ PI3K-Akt ͉ RTK

Wnt signaling is essential for tissue homeostasis and its dysregulation causes cancer. Wnt ligands trigger signaling by activating Frizzled receptors (FZDRs), which belong to the G-protein coupled receptor superfamily. However, the mechanisms of G protein activation in Wnt signaling remain controversial. In this study, we demonstrate that FZDRs activate G proteins and trigger non-canonical Wnt signaling via the Dishevelled-binding protein, Daple. Daple contains a Gα-binding and activating (GBA) motif, which activates Gαi proteins and an adjacent domain that directly binds FZDRs, thereby linking Wnt stimulation to G protein activation. This triggers non-canonical Wnt responses, that is, suppresses the β-catenin/TCF/LEF pathway and tumorigenesis, but enhances PI3K-Akt and Rac1 signals and tumor cell invasiveness. In colorectal cancers, Daple is suppressed during adenoma-to-carcinoma transformation and expressed later in metastasized tumor cells. Thus, Daple activates Gαi and enhances non-canonical Wnt signaling by FZDRs, and its dysregulation can impact both tumor initiation and progression to metastasis.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.07091.001

Migrating cells do not proliferate and vice versa, but the mechanism involved remains unknown. Ghosh et al. reveal how this cellular decision is made by showing that a Gαi–GIV molecular complex interacts with EGF receptor and programs growth factor signaling, triggering migration when assembled and favoring mitosis when assembly is prevented.

During migration, cells must couple direction sensing to signal transduction and actin remodeling. We previously identified GIV/Girdin as a Gαi3 binding partner. We demonstrate that in mammalian cells Gαi3 controls the functions of GIV during cell migration. We find that Gαi3 preferentially localizes to the leading edge and that cells lacking Gαi3 fail to polarize or migrate. A conformational change induced by association of GIV with Gαi3 promotes Akt-mediated phosphorylation of GIV, resulting in its redistribution to the plasma membrane. Activation of Gαi3 serves as a molecular switch that triggers dissociation of Gβγ and GIV from the Gi3–GIV complex, thereby promoting cell migration by enhancing Akt signaling and actin remodeling. Gαi3–GIV coupling is essential for cell migration during wound healing, macrophage chemotaxis, and tumor cell migration, indicating that the Gαi3–GIV switch serves to link direction sensing from different families of chemotactic receptors to formation of the leading edge during cell migration.

The Golgi-localized, gamma-ear-containing, adenosine diphosphate ribosylation factor-binding proteins (GGAs) are multidomain proteins that bind mannose 6-phosphate receptors (MPRs) in the Golgi and have an essential role in lysosomal enzyme sorting. Here the GGAs and the coat protein adaptor protein-1 (AP-1) were shown to colocalize in clathrin-coated buds of the trans-Golgi networks of mouse L cells and human HeLa cells. Binding studies revealed a direct interaction between the hinge domains of the GGAs and the gamma-ear domain of AP-1. Further, AP-1 contained bound casein kinase-2 that phosphorylated GGA1 and GGA3, thereby causing autoinhibition. This could induce the directed transfer of the MPRs from GGAs to AP-1. MPRs that are defective in binding to GGAs are poorly incorporated into AP-1-containing clathrin-coated vesicles. Thus, the GGAs and AP-1 interact to package MPRs into AP-1-containing coated vesicles.

How the directionality of vesicle traffic is achieved remains an important unanswered question in cell biology. The Sec23p/Sec24p coat complex sorts the fusion machinery (SNAREs) into vesicles as they bud from the endoplasmic reticulum. Vesicle tethering to the Golgi begins when the tethering factor TRAPPI binds to Sec23p. Where the coat is released and how this event relates to membrane fusion is unknown. Here we use a yeast transport assay to demonstrate that an ER-derived vesicle retains its coat until it reaches the Golgi. A Golgi-associated kinase, Hrr25p (CK1δ ortholog), then phosphorylates the Sec23p/Sec24p complex. Coat phosphorylation and dephosphorylation are needed for vesicle fusion and budding, respectively. Additionally, we show that Sec23p interacts in a sequential manner with different binding partners, including TRAPPI and Hrr25p, to ensure the directionality of ER-Golgi traffic and prevent the back-fusion of a COPII vesicle with the ER. These events are conserved in mammalian cells.