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.

Metformin is a widely prescribed antidiabetic drug associated with a reduced risk of cancer. Many studies show that metformin inhibits cancer cell viability through the inhibition of mTOR. We recently showed that antiproliferative action of metformin in prostate cancer cell lines is not mediated by AMP-activated protein kinase (AMPK). We identified REDD1 (also known as DDIT4 and RTP801), a negative regulator of mTOR, as a new molecular target of metformin. We show that metformin increases REDD1 expression in a p53-dependent manner. REDD1 invalidation, using siRNA or REDD1−/− cells, abrogates metformin inhibition of mTOR. Importantly, inhibition of REDD1 reverses metformin-induced cell-cycle arrest and significantly protects from the deleterious effects of metformin on cell transformation. Finally, we show the contribution of p53 in mediating metformin action in prostate cancer cells. These results highlight the p53/REDD1 axis as a new molecular target in anticancer therapy in response to metformin treatment. Cancer Res; 71(13);4366–72. ©2011 AACR.

Targeting cancer cell metabolism is a new promising strategy to fight cancer. Metformin, a widely used antidiabetic agent, exerts antitumoral and antiproliferative action. In this study, the addition of metformin to 2-deoxyglucose (2DG) inhibited mitochondrial respiration and glycolysis in prostate cancer cells leading to a severe depletion in ATP. The combination of the two drugs was much more harmful for cancer cells than the treatment with metformin or 2DG alone, leading to 96% inhibition of cell viability in LNCaP prostate cancer cells. In contrast, a moderate effect on cell viability was observed in normal prostate epithelial cells. At the cellular level, the combination of metformin and 2DG induced p53-dependent apoptosis via the energy sensor pathway AMP kinase, and the reexpression of a functional p53 in p53-deficient prostate cancer cells restored caspase-3 activity. In addition to apoptosis, the combination of metformin and 2DG arrested prostate cancer cells in G₂-M. This G₂-M arrest was independent of p53 and correlated with a stronger decrease in cell viability than obtained with either drug. Finally, metformin inhibited 2DG-induced autophagy, decreased beclin 1 expression, and triggered a switch from a survival process to cell death. Our study reinforces the growing interest of metabolic perturbators in cancer therapy and highlights the potential use of the combination of metformin and 2DG as an anticancerous treatment. Cancer Res; 70(6); 2465–75

Metformin is the most widely used antidiabetic drug in the world, and there is increasing evidence of a potential efficacy of this agent as an anticancer drug. First, epidemiological studies show a decrease in cancer incidence in metformin-treated patients. Second, metformin decreases insulin resistance and indirectly reduces insulin level, a beneficial effect because insulin promotes cancer cell growth. Third, several reports outline a direct inhibitory effect of metformin on cancer cell growth and an antitumoral action. Finally, metformin activates the AMP activated protein kinase (AMPK) pathway, a major sensor of the energetic status of the cell, which has been proposed as a promising therapeutic target in cancer. Mol Cancer Ther; 9(5); 1092–99. ©2010 AACR.