Tetrahydrobiopterin (BH4) is the natural cofactor of several enzymes widely distributed among eukaryotes, including aromatic amino acid hydroxylases (AAAHs), nitric oxide synthases (NOSs), and alkylglycerol monooxygenase (AGMO). We show here that the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans, which has three AAAH genes and one AGMO gene, contains BH4 and has genes that function in BH4 synthesis and regeneration. Knockout mutants for putative BH4 synthetic enzyme genes lack the predicted enzymatic activities, synthesize no BH4, and have indistinguishable behavioral and neurotransmitter phenotypes, including serotonin and dopamine deficiency. The BH4 regeneration enzymes are not required for steady-state levels of biogenic amines, but become rate limiting in conditions of reduced BH4 synthesis. BH4-deficient mutants also have a fragile cuticle and are generally hypersensitive to exogenous agents, a phenotype that is not due to AAAH deficiency, but rather to dysfunction in the lipid metabolic enzyme AGMO, which is expressed in the epidermis. Loss of AGMO or BH4 synthesis also specifically alters the sensitivity of C. elegans to bacterial pathogens, revealing a cuticular function for AGMO-dependent lipid metabolism in host-pathogen interactions.

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.