The poly-ADP-ribosylation (PARsylation) activity of tankyrase (TNKS) regulates diverse physiological processes including energy metabolism and wnt/β-catenin signaling. This TNKS activity uses NAD+ as a co-substrate to post-translationally modify various acceptor proteins including TNKS itself. PARsylation by TNKS often tags the acceptors for ubiquitination and proteasomal degradation. Whether this TNKS activity is regulated by physiological changes in NAD+ levels or, more broadly, in cellular energy charge has not been investigated. Because the NAD+ biosynthetic enzyme nicotinamide phosphoribosyltransferase (NAMPT) in vitro is robustly potentiated by ATP, we hypothesized that nutritional energy might stimulate cellular NAMPT to produce NAD+ and thereby augment TNKS catalysis. Using insulin-secreting cells as a model, we showed that glucose indeed stimulates the autoPARsylation of TNKS and consequently its turnover by the ubiquitin-proteasomal system. This glucose effect on TNKS is mediated primarily by NAD+ since it is mirrored by the NAD+ precursor nicotinamide mononucleotide (NMN), and is blunted by the NAMPT inhibitor FK866. The TNKS-destabilizing effect of glucose is shared by other metabolic fuels including pyruvate and amino acids. NAD+ flux analysis showed that glucose and nutrients, by increasing ATP, stimulate NAMPT-mediated NAD+ production to expand NAD+ stores. Collectively our data uncover a metabolic pathway whereby nutritional energy augments NAD+ production to drive the PARsylating activity of TNKS, leading to autoPARsylation-dependent degradation of the TNKS protein. The modulation of TNKS catalytic activity and protein abundance by cellular energy charge could potentially impose a nutritional control on the many processes that TNKS regulates through PARsylation. More broadly, the stimulation of NAD+ production by ATP suggests that nutritional energy may enhance the functions of other NAD+-driven enzymes including sirtuins.

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.