The major advantage of CLP is that it allows researchers to investigate sepsis of different severities (i.e. from low- to mid- and high-grade). Severity of induced sepsis is affected by the length of cecum ligated (which the most important determinant), the size of needle used for puncture and the number of holes performed15. In addition, the mouse strain and gender can impact on the severity of sepsis; several strains are more susceptible than others and males are generally more susceptible than females19,20. The above factors taken together determine the CLP-induced mortality.
Based on our experience, there is a difference between investigators with regard to achieved CLP-induced mortality. For example, Rittirsch et al. used 50% ligation, 21 G, 1 'through-and-through' puncture (two holes) to achieve a 60% mortality15; an investigator in our research group needed to use a slightly more severe model (60% ligation, 21 G, 1 'through-and-through' puncture) to obtain the same mortality; whereas, another investigator in our research group used a more severe model (near 100% ligation, 19 G, 1 'through-and-through' puncture) to achieve a much lower mortality (only 25%). With the above considerations in mind, one could argue that the characterization of severity of CLP (i.e. low-, mid- or high-grade sepsis) should be done retrospectively (i.e. by looking at the resulting mortality) rather than prospectively (i.e. by applying certain conditions, for example 50% ligation). When an operator achieves a mortality of around 60%, then, this is mid-grade sepsis, no matter which conditions (such as length of cecum ligated and number of holes performed) are implemented. Thus, it seems reasonable that the operator try different conditions to identify those under which 60% of mice die. Then, the operator has to implement exactly the same conditions in both groups being compared.
By implementing exactly the same conditions (e.g. the length of cecum ligated, size of needle used for puncture, number of holes performed, the mouse strain, and gender), it is anticipated that consistent and reproducible results will be produced15. However, even after performance of CLP in a standardized manner (taking into account the above determinants), variability may occur. It has been recognized by experts that 'even when identical insults are given to identically aged groups of animals - even from the same litter - a variable individual effect can be seen'6. Thus, in attempt to reduce variability, it seems reasonable that the operator perform CLP in both compared groups on the same day.
The analysis of autophagy, a dynamic cellular process, is complex. The protocols outlined in this monograph provide the basis for estimating autophagy activation in vivo, based on biochemical or morphological analysis of autophagosome formation. In principle, the protocols provided in this chapter can be applied to the analysis of autophagy in any organ tissue in mice subjected to CLP or alternative models of sepsis. While the liver is generally accepted to represent a primary target of CLP, this procedure may also cause injury to lung or kidney tissue, which is worthy of further study. The effect of CLP on autophagy of hepatocytes has been relatively well studied compared to its effects on autophagy of kidney or lung; and some relevant evidence has been recently published21,22.
It should be noted that these are static measures of autophagy, as increased autophagosome numbers may also reflect autophagy dysfunction through blockage of lysosomal function and end-stage processing. In this regard, these assays should be complemented with biochemical assays for autophagic substrate turnover (e.g. flux) as recently described and adapted for in vivo analyses11. These assays can also be complemented by standard Western immunoblot analysis for the expression of key autophagy proteins in tissue as recently described12,13. Thus, it is recommended that a combination of these tests be implemented to gain an accurate estimation of the status of autophagy in injured tissue16.