% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@ARTICLE{Klionsky:905397,
      author       = {Klionsky, Daniel J. and others},
      title        = {{G}uidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for
                      monitoring autophagy (4th edition) 1},
      journal      = {Autophagy},
      volume       = {17},
      number       = {1},
      issn         = {1554-8627},
      address      = {Abingdon, Oxon},
      publisher    = {Taylor $\&$ Francis},
      reportid     = {FZJ-2022-00649},
      pages        = {1 - 382},
      year         = {2021},
      abstract     = {In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for
                      standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic
                      has received increasing attention, and many scientists have
                      entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new
                      technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important
                      to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for
                      monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite
                      numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding
                      acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in
                      multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of
                      guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods
                      to examine autophagy and related processes, and for
                      reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of
                      reports that are focused on these processes. These
                      guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules,
                      because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on
                      the question being asked and the system being used.
                      Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every
                      situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to
                      properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting.
                      Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery
                      have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes
                      (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that
                      genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on
                      targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally
                      participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar
                      lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also
                      regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not
                      all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide
                      autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current
                      methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can,
                      or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage
                      intellectual and technical innovation in the field.},
      cin          = {IBI-7 / ER-C-3},
      ddc          = {570},
      cid          = {I:(DE-Juel1)IBI-7-20200312 / I:(DE-Juel1)ER-C-3-20170113},
      pnm          = {5241 - Molecular Information Processing in Cellular Systems
                      (POF4-524)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-5241},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      pubmed       = {pmid:33634751},
      UT           = {WOS:000636121800001},
      doi          = {10.1080/15548627.2020.1797280},
      url          = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/905397},
}