Despite their different origins, Drosophila glia and hemocytes are related cell populations that provide an immune function. Drosophila hemocytes patrol the body cavity and act as macrophages outside the nervous system, whereas glia originate from the neuroepithelium and provide the scavenger population of the nervous system. Drosophila glia are hence the functional orthologs of vertebrate microglia, even though the latter are cells of immune origin that subsequently move into the brain during development. Interestingly, the Drosophila immune cells within (glia) and outside (hemocytes) the nervous system require the same transcription factor glial cells deficient/glial cells missing (Glide/Gcm) for their development. This raises the issue of how do glia specifically differentiate in the nervous system, and hemocytes in the procephalic mesoderm. The Repo homeodomain transcription factor and panglial direct target of Glide/Gcm is known to ensure glial terminal differentiation. Here we show that Repo also takes center stage in the process that discriminates between glia and hemocytes. First, Repo expression is repressed in the hemocyte anlagen by mesoderm-specific factors. Second, Repo ectopic activation in the procephalic mesoderm is sufficient to repress the expression of hemocyte-specific genes. Third, the lack of Repo triggers the expression of hemocyte markers in glia. Thus, a complex network of tissue-specific cues biases the potential of Glide/Gcm. These data allow us to revise the concept of fate determinants and help us to understand the bases of cell specification. Both sexes were analyzed.SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Distinct cell types often require the same pioneer transcription factor, raising the issue of how one factor triggers different fates. In Drosophila, glia and hemocytes provide a scavenger activity within and outside the nervous system, respectively. While they both require the glial cells deficient/glial cells missing (Glide/Gcm) transcription factor, glia originate from the ectoderm, and hemocytes from the mesoderm. Here we show that tissue-specific factors inhibit the gliogenic potential of Glide/Gcm in the mesoderm by repressing the expression of the homeodomain protein Repo, a major glial-specific target of Glide/Gcm. Repo expression in turn inhibits the expression of hemocyte-specific genes in the nervous system. These cell-specific networks secure the establishment of the glial fate only in the nervous system and allow cell diversification.

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.