Protein complexes and neighborhoods driving autophagy

References

• Mizushima N, Klionsky DJ. Protein turnover via autophagy: implications for metabolism. Annu Rev Nutr. 2007;27:19–40.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rubinsztein DC, Bento CF, Deretic V. Therapeutic targeting of autophagy in neurodegenerative and infectious diseases. J Exp Med. 2015;212(7):979–990.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levine B, Kroemer G. Autophagy in the pathogenesis of disease.Cell. 2008 [cited 2008 Jan 11];132(1):27–42.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chiang HL, Terlecky SR, Plant CP, et al. A role for a 70-kilodalton heat shock protein in lysosomal degradation of intracellular proteins. Science. 1989 Oct 20;246(4928):382–385.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cuervo AM, Wong E. Chaperone-mediated autophagy: roles in disease and aging. Cell Res. 2014 Jan;24(1):92–104.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaushik S, Cuervo AM. Chaperone-mediated autophagy: a unique way to enter the lysosome world. Trends Cell Biol. 2012;22(8):407–417.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mintern JD, Villadangos JA. Autophagy and mechanisms of effective immunity. Front Immunol. 2012;3:60.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nakatogawa H. Mechanisms governing autophagosome biogenesis. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2020 May 5;21(8):439–458.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ohsumi Y. Historical landmarks of autophagy research. Cell Res. 2014 Jan;24(1):9–23.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klionsky DJ, Baehrecke EH, Brumell JH, et al. A comprehensive glossary of autophagy-related molecules and processes (2nd edition). Autophagy. 2011 Nov;7(11):1273–1294.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dikic I, Elazar Z. Mechanism and medical implications of mammalian autophagy. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2018 June;19(6):349–364.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rostislavleva K, Soler N, Ohashi Y, et al. Structure and flexibility of the endosomal Vps34 complex reveals the basis of its function on membranes. Science (New York, NY). 2015;350(6257):aac7365–aac7365.
   Google Scholar
• McAlpine F, Williamson LE, Tooze SA, et al. Regulation of nutrient-sensitive autophagy by uncoordinated 51-like kinases 1 and 2. Autophagy. 2013 Mar;9(3):361–373.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zachari M, Ganley IG. The mammalian ULK1 complex and autophagy initiation. Essays Biochem. 2017;61(6):585–596.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhao YG, Liu N, Miao G, et al. The ER contact proteins VAPA/B interact with multiple autophagy proteins to modulate autophagosome biogenesis. Curr Biol. 2018 Apr 23;28(8):1234–1245.e4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ungermann C, Reggiori F. Atg9 proteins, not so different after all. Autophagy. 2018;14(8):1456–1459.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Puri C, Renna M, Bento CF, et al. Diverse autophagosome membrane sources coalesce in recycling endosomes. Cell. 2013 Sep 12;154(6):1285–1299.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Di Bartolomeo S, Corazzari M, Nazio F, et al. The dynamic interaction of AMBRA1 with the dynein motor complex regulates mammalian autophagy. J Cell Biol. 2010 Oct 4;191(1):155–168.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Egan DF, Chun MG, Vamos M, et al. Small molecule inhibition of the autophagy kinase ULK1 and identification of ULK1 substrates. Mol Cell. 2015 July 16;59(2):285–297.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Russell RC, Tian Y, Yuan H, et al. ULK1 induces autophagy by phosphorylating Beclin-1 and activating VPS34 lipid kinase. Nat Cell Biol. 2013 July;15(7):741–750.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wold MS, Lim J, Lachance V, et al. ULK1-mediated phosphorylation of ATG14 promotes autophagy and is impaired in Huntington’s disease models. Mol Neurodegener. 2016 Dec 9;11(1):76.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Axe EL, Walker SA, Manifava M, et al. Autophagosome formation from membrane compartments enriched in phosphatidylinositol 3-phosphate and dynamically connected to the endoplasmic reticulum. J Cell Biol. 2008;182(4):685–701.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Proikas-Cezanne T, Takacs Z, Donnes P, et al. WIPI proteins: essential PtdIns3P effectors at the nascent autophagosome. J Cell Sci. 2015 Jan 15;128(2):207–217.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bakula D, Müller AJ, Zuleger T, et al. WIPI3 and WIPI4 β-propellers are scaffolds for LKB1-AMPK-TSC signalling circuits in the control of autophagy. Nat Commun. 2017;8:15637.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Valverde DP, Yu S, Boggavarapu V, et al. ATG2 transports lipids to promote autophagosome biogenesis. J Cell Biol. 2019 June 3;218(6):1787–1798.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang H. Lipid transfer at ER-isolation membrane contacts. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2020 Mar;21(3):121.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geng J, Klionsky DJ. The Atg8 and Atg12 ubiquitin-like conjugation systems in macroautophagy. ‘Protein modifications: beyond the usual suspects’ review series. EMBO Rep. 2008;9(9):859–864.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mizushima N, Noda T, Yoshimori T, et al. A protein conjugation system essential for autophagy. Nature. 1998 Sep 24;395(6700):395–398.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dooley HC, Razi M, Polson HE, et al. WIPI2 links LC3 conjugation with PI3P, autophagosome formation, and pathogen clearance by recruiting Atg12-5-16L1. Mol Cell. 2014 July 17;55(2):238–252.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weidberg H, Shvets E, Shpilka T, et al. LC3 and GATE-16/GABARAP subfamilies are both essential yet act differently in autophagosome biogenesis. EMBO J. 2010 June 2;29(11):1792–1802.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kirisako T, Baba M, Ishihara N, et al. Formation process of autophagosome is traced with Apg8/Aut7p in yeast. J Cell Biol. 1999 Oct 18;147(2):435–446.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Birgisdottir ÅB, Lamark T, Johansen T. The LIR motif - crucial for selective autophagy. J Cell Sci. 2013 Aug 1;126(Pt 15):3237–3247.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wild P, McEwan DG, Dikic I. The LC3 interactome at a glance. J Cell Sci. 2014 Jan 1;127(Pt 1):3–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klionsky DJ, Eskelinen E-L, Deretic V. Autophagosomes, phagosomes, autolysosomes, phagolysosomes, autophagolysosomes … wait, I’m confused. Autophagy. 2014;10(4):549–551.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nakamura S, Yoshimori T. New insights into autophagosome-lysosome fusion. J Cell Sci. 2017 Apr 1;130(7):1209–1216.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saxton RA, Sabatini DM. mTOR signaling in growth, metabolism, and disease. Cell. 2017 Mar 9;168(6):960–976.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wong PM, Feng Y, Wang J, et al. Regulation of autophagy by coordinated action of mTORC1 and protein phosphatase 2A. Nat Commun. 2015 Aug 27;6:8048.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Podobnik M, Krasevec N, Bedina Zavec A, et al. How to study protein-protein interactions. Acta Chim Slov. 2016;63(3):424–439.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bensimon A, Heck AJ, Aebersold R. Mass spectrometry-based proteomics and network biology. Annu Rev Biochem. 2012;81:379–405.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perkins JR, Diboun I, Dessailly BH, et al. Transient protein-protein interactions: structural, functional, and network properties. Structure. 2010 Oct 13;18(10):1233–1243.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nooren IM, Thornton JM. Diversity of protein-protein interactions. EMBO J. 2003 July 15;22(14):3486–3492.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nooren IMA, Thornton JM. Structural characterisation and functional significance of transient protein–protein interactions.J Mol Biol. 2003 [cited 2003 Jan 31];325(5):991–1018.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Acuner Ozbabacan SE, Engin HB, Gursoy A, et al. Transient protein-protein interactions. Protein Eng Des Sel. 2011 Sep;24(9):635–648.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noda Nobuo N, Satoo K, Fujioka Y, et al. Structural basis of Atg8 activation by a homodimeric E1, Atg7. Mol Cell. 2011;44(3):462–475.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Montecinos-Franjola F, Schuck P, Sackett DL. Tubulin Dimer reversible dissociation: affinity, kinetics, and demonstration of a stable monomer. J Biol Chem. 2016;291(17):9281–9294.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mackeh R, Perdiz D, Lorin S, et al. Autophagy and microtubules – new story, old players. J Cell Sci. 2013;126(5):1071.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saxton RA, Chantranupong L, Knockenhauer KE, et al. Mechanism of arginine sensing by CASTOR1 upstream of mTORC1. Nature. 2016;536(7615):229–233.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones S, Thornton JM. Analysis of protein-protein interaction sites using surface patches. J Mol Biol. 1997 Sep 12;272(1):121–132.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lo Conte L, Chothia C, Janin J. The atomic structure of protein-protein recognition sites. J Mol Biol. 1999 Feb 5;285(5):2177–2198.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Metlagel Z, Otomo C, Takaesu G, et al. Structural basis of ATG3 recognition by the autophagic ubiquitin-like protein ATG12. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013;110(47):18844–18849.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li X, He L, Che KH, et al. Imperfect interface of Beclin1 coiled-coil domain regulates homodimer and heterodimer formation with Atg14L and UVRAG. Nat Commun. 2012;3:662.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Katsamba P, Carroll K, Ahlsen G, et al. Linking molecular affinity and cellular specificity in cadherin-mediated adhesion. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009;106(28):11594–11599.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fontenete S, Peña-Jimenez D, Perez-Moreno M. Heterocellular cadherin connections: coordinating adhesive cues in homeostasis and cancer. F1000Res. 2017;6:1010.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Nighot P, Ma T. Role of autophagy in the regulation of epithelial cell junctions. Tissue Barriers. 2016;4(3):e1171284–e1171284.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Antón Z, Betin VMS, Simonetti B, et al. A heterodimeric SNX4: SNX7SNX-BAR autophagy complex coordinates ATG9A trafficking for efficient autophagosome assembly. J Cell Sci. bioRxiv. 2020;133(14):jcs246306. doi:https://doi.org/10.1242/jcs.246306.
   Google Scholar
• van Weering JRT, Sessions RB, Traer CJ, et al. Molecular basis for SNX-BAR-mediated assembly of distinct endosomal sorting tubules. EMBO J. 2012 [cited 2012 Nov 28];31(23):4466–4480.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ma M, Kumar S, Purushothaman L, et al. Lipid trafficking by yeast Snx4 family SNX-BAR proteins promotes autophagy and vacuole membrane fusion. Mol Biol Cell. 2018;29(18):2190–2200.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keskin O, Gursoy A, Ma B, et al. Principles of protein-protein interactions: what are the preferred ways for proteins to interact? Chem Rev. 2008 Apr;108(4):1225–1244.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gagarinova A, Phanse S, Cygler M, et al. Insights from protein-protein interaction studies on bacterial pathogenesis. Expert Rev Proteomics. 2017 [cited 2017 Sep 2];14(9):779–797.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yu H, Braun P, Yildirim MA, et al. High-quality binary protein interaction map of the yeast interactome network. Science (New York, NY). 2008;322(5898):104–110.
   Google Scholar
• Hayes S, Malacrida B, Kiely M, et al. Studying protein–protein interactions: progress, pitfalls and solutions. Biochem Soc Trans. 2016;44(4):994–1004.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Timp W, Timp G. Beyond mass spectrometry, the next step in proteomics. Sci Adv. 2020;6(2):eaax8978.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Han X, Aslanian A, Yates JR 3rd. Mass spectrometry for proteomics. Curr Opin Chem Biol. 2008;12(5):483–490.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aebersold R, Mann M. Mass-spectrometric exploration of proteome structure and function. Nature. 2016 Sep 15;537(7620):347–355.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gillet LC, Leitner A, Aebersold R. Mass spectrometry applied to bottom-up proteomics: entering the high-throughput era for hypothesis testing.Ann Rev Anal Chem. 2016 [cited 2016 June 12];9(1):449–472.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aebersold R, Mann M. Mass spectrometry-based proteomics. Nature. 2003 Mar 13;422(6928):198–207.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ludwig C, Gillet L, Rosenberger G, et al. Data-independent acquisition-based SWATH-MS for quantitative proteomics: a tutorial. Mol Syst Biol. 2018 [cited 2018 Aug 1];14(8):e8126.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bantscheff M, Schirle M, Sweetman G, et al. Quantitative mass spectrometry in proteomics: a critical review. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2007 [cited 2007 Oct 1];389(4):1017–1031.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doerr A. Mass spectrometry–based targeted proteomics.Nat Methods. 2013 [cited 2013 Jan 1];10(1):23.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cox J, Mann M. Quantitative, high-resolution proteomics for data-driven systems biology. Annu Rev Biochem. 2011;80:273–299.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Merrill AE, Coon JJ. Quantifying proteomes and their post-translational modifications by stable isotope label-based mass spectrometry. Curr Opin Chem Biol. 2013 Oct;17(5):779–786.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wheatley DN, Scott L, Lamb J, et al. Single amino acid (arginine) restriction: growth and death of cultured HeLa and human diploid fibroblasts. Cell Physiol Biochem. 2000;10(1–2):37–55.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ong SE, Blagoev B, Kratchmarova I, et al. Stable isotope labeling by amino acids in cell culture, SILAC, as a simple and accurate approach to expression proteomics. Mol Cell Proteomics. 2002 May;1(5):376–386.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reynolds KJ, Yao X, Fenselau C. Proteolytic 18O labeling for comparative proteomics: evaluation of endoprotease Glu-C as the catalytic agent. J Proteome Res. 2002 Jan–Feb;1(1):27–33.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yao X, Freas A, Ramirez J, et al. Proteolytic 18O labeling for comparative proteomics: model studies with two serotypes of adenovirus. Anal Chem. 2001 [cited 2001 July 1];73(13):2836–2842.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thompson A, Schäfer J, Kuhn K, et al. Tandem mass tags: a novel quantification strategy for comparative analysis of complex protein mixtures by MS/MS. Anal Chem. 2003 Apr 15;75(8):1895–1904.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ross PL, Huang YN, Marchese JN, et al. Multiplexed protein quantitation in Saccharomyces cerevisiae using amine-reactive isobaric tagging reagents. Mol Cell Proteomics. 2004 Dec;3(12):1154–1169.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plubell DL, Wilmarth PA, Zhao Y, et al. Extended multiplexing of tandem mass tags (TMT) labeling reveals age and high fat diet specific proteome changes in mouse epididymal adipose tissue. Mol Cell Proteomics. 2017;16(5):873–890.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thompson A, Wölmer N, Koncarevic S, et al. TMTpro: design, synthesis, and initial evaluation of a proline-based isobaric 16-plex tandem mass tag reagent set. Anal Chem. 2019 [cited 2019 Dec 17];91(24):15941–15950.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neilson KA, Ali NA, Muralidharan S, et al. Less label, more free: approaches in label-free quantitative mass spectrometry. Proteomics. 2011 Feb;11(4):535–553.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bantscheff M, Lemeer S, Savitski MM, et al. Quantitative mass spectrometry in proteomics: critical review update from 2007 to the present. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2012 Sep;404(4):939–965.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ankney JA, Muneer A, Chen X. Relative and absolute quantitation in mass spectrometry–based proteomics.Ann Rev Anal Chem. 2016 [cited 2018 June 12];11(1):49–77.
   Google Scholar
• Lambert JP, Pawson T, Gingras AC. Mapping physical interactions within chromatin by proteomic approaches. Proteomics. 2012 May;12(10):1609–1622.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Slobodin B, Gerst JE. RaPID: an aptamer-based mRNA affinity purification technique for the identification of RNA and protein factors present in ribonucleoprotein complexes. Methods Mol Biol. 2011;714:387–406.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Tsai BP, Wang X, Huang L, et al. Quantitative profiling of in vivo-assembled RNA-protein complexes using a novel integrated proteomic approach. Mol Cell Proteomics. 2011 Apr;10(4):M110.007385.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oeffinger M. Two steps forward–one step back: advances in affinity purification mass spectrometry of macromolecular complexes. Proteomics. 2012 May;12(10):1591–1608.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pimkina J, Humbey O, Zilfou JT, et al. ARF induces autophagy by virtue of interaction with Bcl-xl. J Biol Chem. 2009 Jan 30;284(5):2803–2810.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dunham WH, Mullin M, Gingras AC. Affinity-purification coupled to mass spectrometry: basic principles and strategies. Proteomics. 2012 May;12(10):1576–1590.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Terpe K. Overview of tag protein fusions: from molecular and biochemical fundamentals to commercial systems. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2003 Jan;60(5):523–533.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rigaut G, Shevchenko A, Rutz B, et al. A generic protein purification method for protein complex characterization and proteome exploration. Nat Biotechnol. 1999 Oct;17(10):1030–1032.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burckstummer T, Bennett KL, Preradovic A, et al. An efficient tandem affinity purification procedure for interaction proteomics in mammalian cells. Nat Methods. 2006 Dec;3(12):1013–1019.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kolkman A, Daran-Lapujade P, Fullaondo A, et al. Proteome analysis of yeast response to various nutrient limitations. Mol Syst Biol. 2006;2:2006.0026.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Becker AC, Bunkenborg J, Eisenberg T, et al. Friend or food. Autophagy. 2012 [cited 2012 June 23];8(6):995–996.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reggiori F, Klionsky DJ. Autophagic processes in yeast: mechanism, machinery and regulation. Genetics. 2013;194(2):341–361.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farré J-C, Subramani S. Mechanistic insights into selective autophagy pathways: lessons from yeast.Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2016 [cited 2016 Sep 1];17(9):537–552.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Behrends C, Sowa ME, Gygi SP, et al. Network organization of the human autophagy system. Nature. 2010 [cited 2010 July 1];466(7302):68–76.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pankiv S, Alemu EA, Brech A, et al. FYCO1 is a Rab7 effector that binds to LC3 and PI3P to mediate microtubule plus end-directed vesicle transport. J Cell Biol. 2010;188(2):253–269.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seguin-Py S, Lucchi G, Croizier S, et al. Identification of HSP90 as a new GABARAPL1 (GEC1)-interacting protein. Biochimie. 2012 Mar;94(3):748–758.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dengjel J, Hoyer-Hansen M, Nielsen MO, et al. Identification of autophagosome-associated proteins and regulators by quantitative proteomic analysis and genetic screens. Mol Cell Proteomics. 2012 Mar;11(3):M111.014035.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wyant GA, Abu-Remaileh M, Frenkel EM, et al. NUFIP1 is a ribosome receptor for starvation-induced ribophagy. Science (New York, NY). 2018;360(6390):751–758.
   Google Scholar
• An H, Ordureau A, Korner M, et al. Systematic quantitative analysis of ribosome inventory during nutrient stress. Nature. 2020 July;583(7815):303–309.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xie Y, Kang R, Sun X, et al. Posttranslational modification of autophagy-related proteins in macroautophagy. Autophagy. 2015;11(1):28–45.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dorsey FC, Rose KL, Coenen S, et al. Mapping the phosphorylation sites of Ulk1. J Proteome Res. 2009 [cited 2009 Nov 6];8(11):5253–5263.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morris JH, Knudsen GM, Verschueren E, et al. Affinity purification-mass spectrometry and network analysis to understand protein-protein interactions. Nat Protoc. 2014;9(11):2539–2554.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trinkle-Mulcahy L. Resolving protein interactions and complexes by affinity purification followed by label-based quantitative mass spectrometry. Proteomics. 2012 [cited 2012 May 1];12(10):1623–1638.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mellacheruvu D, Wright Z, Couzens AL, et al. The CRAPome: a contaminant repository for affinity purification-mass spectrometry data. Nat Methods. 2013 Aug;10(8):730–736.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Le Guerroué F, Eck F, Jung J, et al. Autophagosomal content profiling reveals an LC3C-dependent piecemeal mitophagy pathway. Mol Cell. 2017 [cited 2017 Nov 16];68(4):786–796.e6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Selbach M, Mann M. Protein interaction screening by quantitative immunoprecipitation combined with knockdown (QUICK). Nat Methods. 2006 Dec;3(12):981–983.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Akimov V, Olsen LCB, Hansen SVF, et al. StUbEx PLUS-A modified stable tagged ubiquitin exchange system for peptide level purification and in-depth mapping of ubiquitination sites. J Proteome Res. 2018 Jan 5;17(1):296–304.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schlosshauer M, Baker D. Realistic protein-protein association rates from a simple diffusional model neglecting long-range interactions, free energy barriers, and landscape ruggedness. Protein Sci. 2004 June;13(6):1660–1669.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Samavarchi-Tehrani P, Samson R, Gingras A-C. Proximity dependent biotinylation: key enzymes and adaptation to proteomics approaches. Mol Cell Proteomics. 2020;19(5):757–773.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim DI, Roux KJ. Filling the void: proximity-based labeling of proteins in living cells. Trends Cell Biol. 2016 Nov;26(11):804–817.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trinkle-Mulcahy L. Recent advances in proximity-based labeling methods for interactome mapping. F1000Res. 2019;8:F1000 Faculty Rev–135.
   Google Scholar
• Kim DI, Birendra KC, Zhu W, et al. Probing nuclear pore complex architecture with proximity-dependent biotinylation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014 June 17;111(24):E2453–61.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rees JS, Li X-W, Perrett S, et al. Protein neighbors and proximity proteomics. Mol Cell Proteomics. 2015;14(11):2848–2856.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roux KJ, Kim DI, Raida M, et al. A promiscuous biotin ligase fusion protein identifies proximal and interacting proteins in mammalian cells. J Cell Biol. 2012;196(6):801–810.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Branon TC, Bosch JA, Sanchez AD, et al. Efficient proximity labeling in living cells and organisms with TurboID. Nat Biotechnol. 2018;36(9):880–887.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim DI, Jensen SC, Noble KA, et al. An improved smaller biotin ligase for BioID proximity labeling. Mol Biol Cell. 2016;27(8):1188–1196.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramanathan M, Majzoub K, Rao DS, et al. RNA-protein interaction detection in living cells. Nat Methods. 2018;15(3):207–212.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kido K, Yamanaka S, Nakano S, et al. AirID, a novel proximity biotinylation enzyme, for analysis of protein-protein interactions. eLife. 2020;9:e54983.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu Q, Zheng J, Sun W, et al. A proximity-tagging system to identify membrane protein–protein interactions. Nat Methods. 2018 [cited 2018 Sep 1];15(9):715–722.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hill ZB, Pollock SB, Zhuang M, et al. Direct proximity tagging of small molecule protein targets using an engineered NEDD8 ligase. J Am Chem Soc. 2016;138(40):13123–13126.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhuang M, Guan S, Wang H, et al. Substrates of IAP ubiquitin ligases identified with a designed orthogonal E3 ligase, the NEDDylator. Mol Cell. 2013 Jan 24;49(2):273–282.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martell JD, Deerinck TJ, Sancak Y, et al. Engineered ascorbate peroxidase as a genetically encoded reporter for electron microscopy. Nat Biotechnol. 2012;30(11):1143–1148.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rhee H-W, Zou P, Udeshi ND, et al. Proteomic mapping of mitochondria in living cells via spatially restricted enzymatic tagging. Science (New York, NY). 2013;339(6125):1328–1331.
   Google Scholar
• Lam SS, Martell JD, Kamer KJ, et al. Directed evolution of APEX2 for electron microscopy and proximity labeling. Nat Methods. 2015;12(1):51–54.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jiang S, Kotani N, Ohnishi T, et al. A proteomics approach to the cell-surface interactome using the enzyme-mediated activation of radical sources reaction. Proteomics. 2012;12(1):54–62.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li X-W, Rees JS, Xue P, et al. New insights into the DT40 B cell receptor cluster using a proteomic proximity labeling assay. J Biol Chem. 2014;289(21):14434–14447.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bar DZ, Atkatsh K, Tavarez U, et al. Biotinylation by antibody recognition-a method for proximity labeling. Nat Methods. 2018;15(2):127–133.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Munter S, Görnemann J, Derua R, et al. Split-BioID: a proximity biotinylation assay for dimerization-dependent protein interactions. FEBS Lett. 2017;591(2):415–424.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schopp IM, Amaya Ramirez CC, Debeljak J, et al. Split-BioID a conditional proteomics approach to monitor the composition of spatiotemporally defined protein complexes. Nat Commun. 2017;8:15690.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martell JD, Yamagata M, Deerinck TJ, et al. A split horseradish peroxidase for the detection of intercellular protein-protein interactions and sensitive visualization of synapses. Nat Biotechnol. 2016 July;34(7):774–780.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xue M, Hou J, Wang L, et al. Optimizing the fragment complementation of APEX2 for detection of specific protein-protein interactions in live cells. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):12039.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Han Y, Branon TC, Martell JD, et al. Directed evolution of split APEX2 peroxidase. ACS Chem Biol. 2019 Apr 19;14(4):619–635.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cho KF, Branon TC, Rajeev S, et al. Split-TurboID enables contact-dependent proximity labeling in cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020 June 2;117(22):12143–12154.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Longatti A, Lamb CA, Razi M, et al. TBC1D14 regulates autophagosome formation via Rab11- and ULK1-positive recycling endosomes. J Cell Biol. 2012 May 28;197(5):659–675.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lamb CA, Nühlen S, Judith D, et al. TBC1D14 regulates autophagy via the TRAPP complex and ATG9 traffic. EMBO J. 2016;35(3):281–301.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leidal AM, Huang HH, Marsh T, et al. The LC3-conjugation machinery specifies the loading of RNA-binding proteins into extracellular vesicles. Nat Cell Biol. 2020 Feb;22(2):187–199.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanwald JL, Poschmann G, Stuhler K, et al. The GABARAP co-secretome identified by APEX2-GABARAP proximity labelling of extracellular vesicles. Cells. 2020 June 16; 9(6).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heo J-M, Harper NJ, Paulo JA, et al. Integrated proteogenetic analysis reveals the landscape of a mitochondrial-autophagosome synapse during PARK2-dependent mitophagy. Sci Adv. 2019;5(11):eaay4624–eaay4624.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jia J, Abudu YP, Claude-Taupin A, et al. Galectins control mTOR in response to endomembrane damage. Mol Cell. 2018;70(1):120–135.e8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jia J, Bissa B, Brecht L, et al. AMPK, a regulator of metabolism and autophagy, is activated by lysosomal damage via a novel galectin-directed ubiquitin signal transduction system. Mol Cell. 2020 [cited 2020 Mar 5];77(5):951–969.e9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chauhan S, Kumar S, Jain A, et al. TRIMs and galectins globally cooperate and TRIM16 and galectin-3 co-direct autophagy in endomembrane damage homeostasis. Dev Cell. 2016 Oct 10;39(1):13–27.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jia J, Claude-Taupin A, Gu Y, et al. Galectin-3 coordinates a cellular system for lysosomal repair and removal. Dev Cell. 2020 [cited 2020 Jan 6];52(1):69–87.e8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roux KJ, Kim DI, Burke B, et al. BioID: a screen for protein-protein interactions. Curr Protoc Protein Sci. 2018;91:19.23.1–19.23.15.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hara T, Takamura A, Kishi C, et al. FIP200, a ULK-interacting protein, is required for autophagosome formation in mammalian cells. J Cell Biol. 2008;181(3):497–510.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ganley IG, Lam DH, Wang J, et al. ULK1.ATG13.FIP200 complex mediates mTOR signaling and is essential for autophagy. J Biol Chem. 2009;284(18):12297–12305.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ewing RM, Chu P, Elisma F, et al. Large-scale mapping of human protein-protein interactions by mass spectrometry. Mol Syst Biol. 2007;3:89.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matsunaga K, Saitoh T, Tabata K, et al. Two Beclin 1-binding proteins, Atg14L and rubicon, reciprocally regulate autophagy at different stages. Nat Cell Biol. 2009 [cited 2009 Apr 1];11(4):385–396.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Judith D, Jefferies HBJ, Boeing S, et al. ATG9A shapes the forming autophagosome through Arfaptin 2 and phosphatidylinositol 4-kinase IIIβ. J Cell Biol. 2019;218(5):1634–1652.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hosokawa N, Hara T, Kaizuka T, et al. Nutrient-dependent mTORC1 association with the ULK1-Atg13-FIP200 complex required for autophagy. Mol Biol Cell. 2009;20(7):1981–1991.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hosokawa N, Sasaki T, Iemura S-I, et al. Atg101, a novel mammalian autophagy protein interacting with Atg13. Autophagy. 2009 [cited 2009 Oct 1];5(7):973–979.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huttlin EL, Bruckner RJ, Paulo JA, et al. Architecture of the human interactome defines protein communities and disease networks. Nature. 2017 [cited 2017 May 1];545(7655):505–509.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cho KF, Branon TC, Rajeev S, et al. Split-TurboID enables contact-dependent proximity labeling in cells. Proc Nat Acad Sci. 2020;117(22):12143–12154.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kwak C, Shin S, Park J-S, et al. Contact-ID, a tool for profiling organelle contact sites, reveals regulatory proteins of mitochondrial-associated membrane formation. Proc Nat Acad Sci. 2020;117(22):12109–12120.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davies AK, Itzhak DN, Edgar JR, et al. AP-4 vesicles contribute to spatial control of autophagy via RUSC-dependent peripheral delivery of ATG9A. Nat Commun. 2018 [cited 2018 Sep 27];9(1):3958.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Martin AP, Jacquemyn M, Lipecka J, et al. STK38 kinase acts as XPO1 gatekeeper regulating the nuclear export of autophagy proteins and other cargoes. EMBO Rep. 2019;20(11):e48150.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• An H, Ordureau A, Paulo JA, et al. TEX264 is an endoplasmic reticulum-resident ATG8-interacting protein critical for ER remodeling during nutrient stress. Mol Cell. 2019 [cited 2019 June 6];74(5):891–908.e10.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar