Next Article in Journal
Molecular Mechanisms of Immune Regulation: A Review
Previous Article in Journal
Imipramine, an Acid Sphingomyelinase Inhibitor, Promotes Newborn Neuron Survival in the Hippocampus After Seizure
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Role of Bcl-2 and Beclin-1 Complex in “Switching” between Apoptosis and Autophagy in Human Glioma Cells upon LY294002 and Sorafenib Treatment
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Autophagy in Tissue Repair and Regeneration

by
Daniel Moreno-Blas
,
Teresa Adell
and
Cristina González-Estévez
*
Department of Genetics, Microbiology and Statistics, School of Biology and Institute of Biomedicine (IBUB), University of Barcelona, Av. Diagonal, 643, 08028 Barcelona, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Cells 2025, 14(4), 282; https://doi.org/10.3390/cells14040282
Submission received: 21 December 2024 / Revised: 1 February 2025 / Accepted: 13 February 2025 / Published: 14 February 2025
(This article belongs to the Collection Feature Papers in Autophagy)

Abstract

:
Autophagy is a cellular recycling system that, through the sequestration and degradation of intracellular components regulates multiple cellular functions to maintain cellular homeostasis and survival. Dysregulation of autophagy is closely associated with the development of physiological alterations and human diseases, including the loss of regenerative capacity. Tissue regeneration is a highly complex process that relies on the coordinated interplay of several cellular processes, such as injury sensing, defense responses, cell proliferation, differentiation, migration, and cellular senescence. These processes act synergistically to repair or replace damaged tissues and restore their morphology and function. In this review, we examine the evidence supporting the involvement of the autophagy pathway in the different cellular mechanisms comprising the processes of regeneration and repair across different regenerative contexts. Additionally, we explore how modulating autophagy can enhance or accelerate regeneration and repair, highlighting autophagy as a promising therapeutic target in regenerative medicine for the development of autophagy-based treatments for human diseases.

1. Introduction

Autophagy is a highly conserved eukaryotic catabolic process responsible for the lysosomal degradation of intracellular components [1]. In mammals, three distinct pathways facilitate the delivery of cytosolic components to lysosomes for degradation. These include microautophagy [2], chaperone-mediated autophagy (CMA) [3], and macroautophagy (referred to here as autophagy) [4], the most extensively characterized form of autophagy (Figure 1). Autophagy can also be categorized based on the specific intracellular components targeted for degradation. These include xenophagy (clearance of intracellular pathogens), mitophagy (removal of mitochondria), ER-phagy (turnover of endoplasmic reticulum), aggrephagy (elimination of protein aggregates), lysophagy (degradation of lysosomes), lipophagy (breakdown of lipid droplets), and glycophagy (degradation of glycogen), among others. Each of these cargo types is recognized and sequestered by specific receptor proteins, which facilitate their selective targeting for autophagic degradation [5].
The process of autophagy initiates with the formation of an isolation membrane (also known as phagophore) in the cytosol. This membrane elongates to engulf portions of the cytoplasm, including proteins, damaged organelles such as mitochondria, the Golgi apparatus, endosomes, and even pathogens. Once the phagophore completely encloses the cargo, it forms an autophagosome, a double-membrane vesicle. The autophagosome then fuses with a lysosome to create an autolysosome, where the sequestered cytoplasmic material and the inner membrane of the autophagosome are degraded by lysosomal hydrolytic enzymes (Figure 1). Each stage of this intricate process is tightly regulated by a series of autophagy-related proteins (ATG proteins), which sequentially control phagophore formation, autophagosome biogenesis, and the fusion of the autophagosome with the lysosome [6].
Autophagy is an intracellular quality control and repair process that safeguards genomic stability and cellular integrity by removing damaged organelles, aggregated proteins, defective cytoplasmic components, and invading pathogens [7]. This degradation system participates in multiple cellular processes essential for the functional maintenance of normal tissues and organismal health, including cell death, preservation of stem cells, tumor suppression, and longevity [8]. Thus, as a key mechanism for cellular repair and renewal, defects in autophagy activity are closely linked to the decline of tissue homeostasis and a reduced regenerative capacity [9,10]. Despite growing interest in autophagy, comprehensive reviews specifically addressing its role in the complex mechanisms governing tissue regeneration remain limited. This review aims to address this gap by providing evidence supporting the involvement of autophagy in key biological processes underlying tissue repair and regeneration, including sensing the injury, immune response, peripheral barrier restoration, cell activation and cell cycle re-entry, differentiation and morphogenesis, and remodeling and scaling (Table 1). Particular emphasis is placed on findings from diverse regenerative species, offering a broader perspective on how autophagy could influence tissue regeneration across various biological contexts.

2. Molecular Machinery of Autophagy

To date, a number of autophagy-related proteins (ATGs) have been identified as controlling the complex molecular signaling of autophagosome biogenesis and have been described in detail elsewhere [6,24,25,26]. Here, we provide a brief overview of some of the most critical proteins involved in this process (Figure 2).
Phagophore formation is initiated by the activation of the ULK complex, comprising ULK1, ATG13, FIP200, and ATG101, in response to stress conditions, such as starvation, hypoxia, oxidative stress, protein aggregation, endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress and others. This activation triggers a series of ULK1-dependent phosphorylation events, subsequently activating the class III phosphatidylinositol-3-kinase (PI3KC3) complex, which includes Beclin 1, Ambra1, and VPS34. PI3KC3 activity generates phosphatidylinositol 3-phosphate (PI3P), a phospholipid that facilitates the recruitment of DFCP1, ATG12, WIPI1, and additional ATG proteins, which together support phagophore elongation (Figure 2). At this stage, ATG5 is covalently conjugated to ATG12 through a ubiquitin-like reaction mediated by ATG7 and ATG10. The resulting ATG5-ATG12 conjugate then associates with Atg16L1, forming the Atg16L1 complex. Concurrently, the protease ATG4 cleaves LC3, producing LC3-I. LC3-I is subsequently conjugated to phosphatidylethanolamine (PE) through the coordinated actions of ATG7, ATG3, and the Atg16L1 complex, generating LC3-II. This form of LC3 is essential for autophagosome formation and is specifically localized to the autophagosome membrane.
Upon completion of autophagosome formation, ATG4 cleaves LC3-II from the outer autophagosome membrane, resulting in LC3-II localization specifically to the inner membrane of the autophagosome. Subsequently, autophagosomes are transported along microtubules, with SNARE proteins facilitating their fusion with lysosomes. Finally, the lysosomal hydrolases degrade the cytoplasmic material enclosed within the autophagosome, and the resulting biomolecules are released back into the cytosol to be used again by the cell (Figure 2).
The autophagy machinery can be initiated by a wide range of endogenous and exogenous stimuli, including nutrient deficiency, inflammation, hypoxia, reduced cellular energy levels (e.g., ATP depletion), and pathogenic infections [27]. This dynamic and tightly regulated process is also activated during tissue regeneration and wound healing, functioning as an indispensable mechanism promoting tissue repair and restoration.

3. Regeneration and Repair

The regeneration process refers to the precise replacement of tissues, organs, or body parts following injury, aimed at restoring the original structure and function [11]. The ability to regenerate varies across the animal kingdom, ranging from species that can fully reconstruct entire organisms from small fragments (whole-body regeneration), for example, planarians and cnidarians, those that can regenerate full organs as seen in fish and salamanders, to the ones that have a more restricted capacity of regeneration limited to certain tissues or cell types, for example, humans (Figure 3) [28]. In contrast, repair can restore some aspects of the original tissue structure, but it may also lead to structural abnormalities, such as scar formation or fibrosis, which can negatively affect organ function. Thus, regeneration and repair constitute complex phenomena that present challenges in cross-species and cross-tissues comparison.
The most important biological processes that facilitate regeneration and also aid in repair include: (1) Sensing the injury, (2) Immune response, (3) Peripheral barrier restoration, (4) Cell activation (may involve migration), cell cycle re-entry and proliferation, (5) Differentiation and morphogenesis, and (6) Remodeling and scaling (Table 1) [11,29,30,31,32,33,34]. While these processes operate in concert to achieve full tissue repair and restoration, their manifestation can vary significantly between species/tissues with high regenerative capacities and those with more limited regenerative potential or those that can only repair damage.
In this review, we focus on the key biological processes involved in tissue regeneration and repair, considering various types of damage, including microbial infections, treatments with ligands and agonists such as LPS, exposure to toxins, skin injuries, limb amputations, and neuronal degeneration, all of which necessitate repair or regeneration. We will explore how autophagy influences various of these biological processes (Figure 4) and how this modulation can impact regeneration and repair. Additionally, we will discuss its potential as a therapeutic target in regenerative medicine.

4. Exploring a Possible Role of Autophagy in Sensing and Responding to Injury

Following injury, wounded tissues initiate a coordinated response aimed at promoting repair, preventing infection, clearing cellular debris, restoring cell populations, and reorganizing tissue architecture [35]. This response is driven by rapid molecular changes in cells at the wound site, which activate critical signaling pathways for wound detection and initiating early responses. Key signals released during this phase include damage-associated molecular patterns (DAMPs) such as extracellular adenosine triphosphate (ATP), reactive oxygen species (ROS), polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs), and increase in intracellular Ca2+ [35,36]. Each of these damage signals can initiate the autophagic pathway or be modulated by the autophagy machinery. In this section, we will specifically examine the interplay between DAMPs, ATP, and ROS in regulating autophagy within the context of tissue regeneration.

4.1. Autophagy and DAMPs in Tissue Regeneration

Release of DAMPs by Autophagy. Upon tissue injury and predominantly observed in vertebrates, a group of cellular molecules, including nuclear and cytosolic proteins, known as damage-associated molecular patterns (DAMPs) are released by stressed, injured, or dying cells. These molecules are subsequently recognized by specialized receptors on immune cells, triggering critical signaling pathways essential for initiating tissue repair. Relevant DAMPs include the nuclear protein high mobility group box 1 (HMGB1), an abundant chromatin-binding protein and one of the best-characterized DAMPs [37,38,39]. Another example is adenosine triphosphate (ATP), the primary bioenergetic substrate and metabolic currency, which can also be released into the extracellular space where it functions as a signaling molecule regulating many biological processes [37,40,41,42]. Research has shown that autophagy regulates the selective release and secretion of HMGB1 and ATP in cells destined to die. For instance, studies in vitro using human tumor cells treated with diphtheria toxin, which kills tumor cells, showed that dying cells with elevated autophagy selectively release HMGB1 without disrupting the cell membrane, whereas cells with blocked autophagy retain HMGB1 [43]. A recent study using human and murine cell lines revealed that autophagosome formation is crucial for HMGB1 secretion under stress conditions such as starvation, and phorbol 12-myristate 13-acetate (PMA) and trichostatin A (TSA) treatments, with HMGB1 secretion notably inhibited by an early autophagy inhibitor and reduced in ATG5-deficient cells, highlighting the involvement of the secretory autophagy machinery in HMGB1 release [44]. In addition, using the Ba/F3 mouse cell line, it was observed that dying (induced by doxorubicin) autophagic cells release ATP that stimulates inflammasome activation in macrophages and secretion of interleukin-1 beta (IL-1β) [45]. Consistent with this, research indicates that autophagy is essential for the release of ATP from dying mouse tumor cells, which stimulates antitumor immune responses [46]. An additional study using HeLa cells demonstrated that under starvation conditions ATP is released to the extracellular space via autophagic vesicles in a vesicle-associated membrane protein 7 (VAMP7)-dependent manner [47]. Collectively, these investigations emphasize the role of autophagy in mediating DAMPs release under various conditions, which may play a crucial role in sensing and responding to tissue injury. However, no single study has directly demonstrated the contribution of autophagy-dependent DAMP release in the contexts of tissue repair or regeneration. Exploring this connection further could provide valuable insights for future research in the regenerative field.
Autophagy activation by DAMPs. The relationship between DAMPs and autophagy could be bidirectional. HMGB1 and ATP may also activate the autophagic process. Research in cultured mouse embryonic fibroblasts (MEFs) has shown that cytosolic HMGB1 disrupts the Beclin1–Bcl-2 interaction by competitively binding to Beclin1, leading to the dissociation of the Beclin1–Bcl-2 complex and the subsequent induction of autophagy under starvation [48]. Additionally, HMGB1 activates autophagy in response to oxidative stress, as evidenced by findings that inhibition of HMGB1 release or loss of HMGB1 in MEFs results in reduced LC3-II formation, a decrease in autophagosome formation, and blockage of autophagic flux under oxidative stress conditions [49]. Moreover, a recent study in vitro showed that HMGB1 induces autophagy in mouse macrophages in response to lipopolysaccharide (LPS) [50]. Another line of research provided evidence that ATP induces rapid cell autophagy in human macrophages in vitro as an efficient mechanism to control mycobacterial infections [51]. Also, in cultured mouse microglial cells, it was observed that ATP treatment triggers the release of autolysosomes into extracellular spaces probably as a mechanism to eliminate the undigested material contained in lysosome-related organelles that can be harmful if they remain in the cytosol [52]. These studies suggest a mutual regulation between DAMPs and autophagy in different conditions. Despite this, the activation of autophagy by DAMPs has not been reported in the context of tissue repair or regeneration, which would be highly relevant for the field.

4.2. ROS and Autophagy: A Possible Interaction in Tissue Regeneration

Reactive oxygen species (ROS) are highly reactive metabolites derived from molecular oxygen (O2) and include nonradical hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), hydroxyl radical (·OH), and superoxide radical anion (O2−) [53]. At physiological levels, ROS function as signaling molecules that contribute to the regulation of various cellular processes [54]. Multiple lines of research support the idea that ROS plays a regulating role in early wound responses and regeneration across various animal models. For instance, studies indicate that amputation triggers a sustained ROS production as an early event essential for blastema formation and the progression of regeneration, as observed in tadpole tail regeneration in Xenopus [55] and during fin regeneration in adult zebrafish [56]. Similarly, ROS have been shown to activate key signaling pathways necessary for imaginal disc regeneration in Drosophila [57]. In planarians, amputation-induced ROS production is required for differentiation and successful regeneration [58,59]. Also, ROS signaling is considered one of the hallmarks of regulating human wound healing by affecting inflammation, cell proliferation, angiogenesis, and extracellular matrix formation [60].
Almost all autophagy steps from autophagosome induction and formation till autophagy maturation and cargo degradation are affected by ROS [61]. For example, elevated ROS levels result in the oxidation of Atg4, which triggers autophagosome formation [62]. ROS can regulate autophagy by activating AMPK, which subsequently phosphorylates the ULK1 complex, leading to the induction of autophagy [63,64]. Moreover, oxidation of TFEB (transcription factor EB), a master transcription factor of autophagy, enables TFEB to translocate to nuclei for active transcription of autophagic and lysosomal genes to control autophagy [65]. Collectively, these evidences suggest that injury-induced ROS may play a critical role in activating the autophagy pathway, which can be crucial for the next steps of the regeneration process.
On the other hand, although autophagy is modulated by ROS, autophagy also exerts a feedback mechanism to control ROS levels. This occurs through the degradation of ROS-generating organelles like mitochondria (mitophagy) [66] and proteins that are involved in ROS generation [67]. In this context, studies have shown that autophagy plays a key role in tissue regeneration by modulating ROS levels. For instance, autophagy has been found to support irradiation-induced intestinal regeneration in Drosophila by reducing excessive ROS in intestinal stem cells [68]. Similarly, mitophagy activation is essential for functional regeneration of skeletal muscle following myotoxic injury in mice by cardiotoxin injection into the left tibialis anterior muscles [69]. However, inducing mitophagy to reduce mitochondrial ROS levels has been shown to impair liver repair after partial hepatectomy [70]. Together, these findings highlight the complex interplay between ROS and autophagy, suggesting that regulation of either component can significantly influence tissue regeneration outcomes.

5. Functional Interplay Between Autophagy and Immune Defense Responses

Tissue injury in vertebrates generally triggers an immune response, which plays a crucial role in tissue repair and regeneration [71]. Upon tissue injury, an inflammatory response is triggered by DAMPs released from dying cells and pathogen-associated molecular patterns (PAMPs) from invading organisms. This response provides an immediate defense against potential pathogens infiltrating the injured tissue. Toll-like receptors (TLRs) and other pattern recognition receptors (PRRs) recognize these danger signals and initiate a complex inflammatory cascade. This cascade activates tissue-resident macrophages, which subsequently facilitate the recruitment of neutrophils, monocytes, macrophages, and other immune cells. Together, these cellular components orchestrate a coordinated immune response critical for effective tissue repair. For a comprehensive overview of the key players involved in the immune response following tissue injury and during regeneration, detailed discussions are available in previously published reviews [72,73,74,75].
In response to damage signals, several pattern recognition receptors (PRRs) and inflammatory proteins can activate autophagy to support antimicrobial defense and modulate inflammatory responses. For instance, in murine and human macrophage cell lines treated with lipopolysaccharide (LPS), Toll-like receptor 2 (TLR2) and TLR4 induce autophagy by stabilizing Beclin 1, which is crucial to initiate autophagosome formation [76,77]. NOD1 and NOD2, two well-characterized pattern recognition receptors (PRRs) of the NOD-like receptor (NLR) family, activate autophagy in human and murine cell lines after bacterial sensing by recruiting ATG16L1 to the plasma membrane at bacterial entry sites. This process facilitates the encapsulation of invading bacteria by autophagosomes, leading to their subsequent degradation [78,79]. In addition, stimulation of TLR2/6 or TLR4 with TLR ligands induces autophagy in primary human keratinocytes to prevent excessive inflammation and modulate the inflammatory response [80]. Another study demonstrated that Toll-like receptor 2 (TLR2) promotes autophagy in renal tubular epithelial cells via the PI3K/Akt signaling pathway following cisplatin-induced acute kidney injury [81]. In this context, skin wounds in mice induce autophagy in keratinocytes through TNF and NFκB activation. This autophagy, in turn, promotes wound repair by facilitating the recruitment of macrophages, neutrophils, and mast cells via the regulation of CCL2 (C-C motif chemokine ligand 2) expression [82]. Interestingly, studies using a UV-mediated acute skin injury mouse model and human skin biopsies revealed that vitamin D-induced autophagy in macrophages improves wound healing by facilitating macrophage differentiation [83]. Conversely, immune machinery-induced autophagy can serve as a feedback mechanism to suppress inflammation by degrading pattern recognition receptor (PRR) pathway sensors and other key inflammatory proteins. For instance, using human and mouse cells, it was found that the TRIF adaptor's selective autophagic degradation is required to terminate the TLR3/4-mediated innate immune and inflammatory responses after stimulation with various TLR ligands [84,85]. Inflammasomes are cytosolic signaling complexes that drive inflammation in response to damage signals detected by PRRs. Research involving mouse models, as well as human and mouse cell lines, indicates that autophagic degradation of inflammasomes helps regulate inflammation upon stimulation of macrophages with NLRP3 agonists [86,87]. In addition, it has been shown that autophagy controls the secretion of the proinflammatory cytokine interleukin-1β (IL-1β) by targeting pro-IL-1β for lysosomal degradation and by regulating the activation of the NLRP3 Inflammasome in mice after treatment with LPS [88]. Taken together, these studies highlight the intricate interplay between autophagy and the immune response in vertebrates, underscoring the important role of autophagy in the clearance of intracellular pathogens and the regulation of immune defense mechanisms. Nevertheless, despite all the evidence presented, information on the role of autophagy in regulating these inflammatory factors during tissue regeneration or repair is extremely scarce. This presents an exciting avenue for future research.

The Crosstalk Between Autophagy and Inflammation During Skin Wound Healing

Inflammation is an important response that plays a crucial role in the regeneration of injured tissues [89,90]. As previously mentioned, tissue injury triggers the release of danger signals (DAMPs and PAMPs), which activate TLRs and PRRs, leading to inflammation through the activation of transcription factors such as NF-κB and interferon regulatory factors [75]. This regenerative inflammatory response is a crucial step in skin wound healing and begins with the activation of monocytes into pro-inflammatory M1 macrophages. Subsequently, these M1 macrophages undergo polarization into the anti-inflammatory and pro-regenerative M2 phenotype, a key process essential for proper tissue repair and healing [91]. In this context, evidence has shown that macrophage autophagy plays an essential role in macrophage polarization [92]. For example, a recent study demonstrated that the chemokine C-C motif ligand 6 (CCL6) promotes wound healing by increasing M2-type macrophage levels. This effect is mediated through the inhibition of macrophage autophagy via activation of the PI3K/Akt signaling pathway during skin wound healing in mice [93]. During the inflammatory phase of wound healing, a large number of cytokines and chemokines are secreted resulting in the recruitment of neutrophils that also produce cytokines such as tumor necrosis factor-a (TNF-α), IL-1β and IL-6 to amplify the inflammatory response [94,95]. In this context, a recent study demonstrated that both wounding and TNF induce the autophagic flux in keratinocytes through NF-κB activation. This autophagy activation is essential for the recruitment of macrophages, neutrophils, and mast cells to the wound site via the induction of CCL2 [82], a key chemokine involved in the migration and infiltration of monocytes and macrophages [96]. Interestingly, another study demonstrated that pharmacological inhibition of autophagy using 3-MA exerts anti-inflammatory effects by downregulating the expression of pro-inflammatory cytokines, including TNF-α, IL-1β, and IL-6, and promoting skin wound healing in mice [97]. Moreover, autophagy can directly influence the secretion of inflammatory molecules. It has been reported that autophagy stimulation in macrophages facilitates the release of proinflammatory factors, particularly IL-1β and HMGB1, through a process known as secretory autophagy [98,99]. This mechanism may contribute to reparative inflammation during wound healing.
Overall, it is clear that autophagy significantly influences the early stages of the wound healing process. It is essential for initiating inflammation through multiple pathways and contributes to the mobilization of neutrophils, monocytes, and macrophages. Therefore, a deeper understanding of the interplay between autophagy and inflammation during wound healing could open new avenues for developing therapeutic strategies to enhance tissue repair and improve clinical outcomes.

6. Autophagy and Its Role in Regulating Cell Proliferation During Regeneration: Stem Cell Proliferation or Cell Cycle Re-Entry

A marked increase in mitotic activity is a characteristic feature observed across organisms with high regenerative capacity [16]. Following injury, regenerative processes can either enhance the cell cycle activity in pre-existing populations of dividing stem cells or induce differentiated cells to re-enter the cell cycle. In both scenarios, cell proliferation emerges as a crucial determinant of successful regeneration [16]. For instance, in the cnidarian Nematostella, stem cell proliferation significantly increases between 24- and 48-h post-amputation (hpa) during head regeneration [100]. In the acoel model Hofstenia, stem cell proliferation increases during regeneration as early as 6 hpa [101]. In the freshwater planarian, Schmidtea mediterranea, one of the most extensively studied model systems for whole-body regeneration, amputation triggers two peaks of increased stem cell mitosis in response to injury. The first mitotic peak, by 6 hpa, represents a body-wide response to any injury, while a second, by 48-72 hpa, is triggered only when the injury results in tissue loss [102]. Additional studies have shown an increase in cell proliferation in Drosophila imaginal wing disc regeneration [103], during zebrafish fin regeneration [104], the Mexican axolotl limb regeneration [105] and during skin wound healing [82].
Autophagy plays a complex role in controlling cell proliferation by modulating the availability and degradation of key cell cycle regulators. In mammals, through selective autophagic degradation, it influences cyclin-dependent kinases (CDKs), cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitors (e.g., CDKN1B/p27), and E2F transcription factors—essential players in cell cycle progression. Notably, this regulatory relationship is bidirectional: while autophagy modulates the activity and turnover of these cell cycle components, several of these factors, in turn, exert control over autophagic processes, creating a dynamic feedback loop [106,107]. This intricate interplay highlights the dual role of autophagy in both promoting and restraining cell proliferation, depending on the cellular context and stress conditions.
Emerging evidence highlights autophagy as a crucial process for maintaining the function and maintenance of various stem cell populations [108]. Autophagy supports stem cell survival and function by facilitating cellular remodeling, mitigating reactive oxygen species (ROS) production, and preventing DNA damage through the removal of damaged mitochondria [108]. For instance, impaired autophagy in muscle stem cells (satellite cells) results in increased mitochondrial dysfunction and ROS production, driving the cells into senescence and leading to defective muscle regeneration following myotoxic injury in mice by cardiotoxin injection [109]. Moreover, autophagy is critical for the activation of muscle stem cells, transitioning them from a quiescent state into the cell cycle. The autophagy process ensures the availability of essential nutrients and metabolic precursors necessary for stem cell activation and proliferation during mice skeletal muscle regeneration after injection of BaCl2 in the tibialis anterior (TA) muscle [110].
Numerous studies have highlighted the critical role of autophagy in regulating cell proliferation during regeneration across various biological systems. For example, autophagy has been shown to promote cell proliferation during the early stages of zebrafish fin regeneration [111]. In Drosophila, autophagy is essential in intestinal stem cells to sustain proliferation, enabling continuous regeneration of the intestinal epithelium after damage with dextran sodium sulfate, DSS [112]. Similarly, epidermal autophagy has been demonstrated to support keratinocyte proliferation, facilitating wound healing and skin repair [82]. Furthermore, the activation of autophagy with rapamycin in rats accelerated skin regeneration by enhancing cell proliferation and increasing the population of epidermal basal stem cells and hair follicle stem cells [113].
These studies provide insights into the important role of autophagy in supporting cell proliferation during tissue regeneration.
A central mechanism accompanying tissue repair and regeneration observed in many organs and species is the process of cell cycle re-entry. Organisms with high regenerative capacity employ diverse and unique strategies to replace lost or damaged tissue, such as inducing terminally differentiated cells to revert to a less specialized state within their lineage (dedifferentiation), prompting cells to switch lineages to generate a different cell type (transdifferentiation) or simply inducing cell proliferation [114]. Notably, cell cycle re-entry is the common component of all these mechanisms involved in tissue regeneration. For example, tissue injury can stimulate cell cycle entry of cardiomyocytes during heart regeneration in zebrafish [115]. Similarly, in axolotls, connective tissue cells near the injury site dedifferentiate to form a blastema, which proliferates and redifferentiates to regenerate all components of the lost limb [116,117]. In mammals, Schwann cells dedifferentiate and proliferate following nerve injury to support nerve regeneration [118]. Interestingly, recent studies in mammalian stomach and pancreas have found that fully differentiated cells return to proliferation in an autophagy- and mTORC1-dependent manner [119,120]. In a model of high-dose tamoxifen injury repair in the stomach and pancreas, downregulation of mTORC1 promotes autophagy to degrade differentiated cell components and damaged organelles. Then, cells induce expression of wound-healing associated genes including Sox9, Clu, and Cd44v, while reactivating cellular metabolism. Subsequently, mTORC1 activity is restored, enabling cells to exit their differentiated state and re-enter the cell cycle to support tissue regeneration [119,120]. This regenerative mechanism is termed paligenosis, a term originating from the Greek words palin (indicating “recurrence” or “going backward”), genea (meaning “origin” or “producing”), and osis (denoting “a process or action”). It is regulated by two key genes, Ddit4 and Ifrd1 [121,122]. Similarly, during zebrafish muscle regeneration, autophagy activation early in the regenerative response to muscle injury facilitates myocyte dedifferentiation by regulating cytoplasmic remodeling after large myectomy [123]. Curiously, autophagy has also been shown to play a critical role in reprogramming differentiated cells into induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs). During the early stages of iPSC generation, the transcription factor Sox2 suppresses mTOR activity, leading to a transient increase in autophagy. This autophagic phase is essential for cellular reprogramming, after which mTOR activity is restored in later stages to ensure the successful completion of the reprogramming process [124]. Furthermore, nerve injury has been shown to activate the selective autophagic degradation of myelin (myelinophagy) in Schwann cells, facilitating their dedifferentiation which is important for nerve repair and regeneration [125,126]. In addition, autophagy has been reported to facilitate the dedifferentiation and recovery of the regenerative capacity of aged human bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells cultured in a three-dimensional system [127]. Collectively, these studies identify autophagy activation as a potential mechanism that could facilitate cell cycle re-entry, thereby promoting tissue repair and regeneration.

7. Autophagy Promotes Cellular Migration for Tissue Regeneration and Wound Repair

Following tissue injury, the recruitment and migration of different cell types to the wound site is essential for promoting tissue repair and regeneration. For example, adult stem cells (neoblasts) migrate to wound sites during planarian regeneration in response to tissue loss [102,128]. During zebrafish regeneration, neutrophils and macrophages have been observed to migrate to the wound site in response to both heart [129] and fin injuries [130]. Intestinal stem cells also migrate towards the wound within the Drosophila intestinal epithelium to facilitate the regeneration of the adult intestine after enteropathogenic infection and tissue damage by laser ablation [131]. In addition, during mammalian skin repair, epithelial cells migrate to contribute to wound closure and tissue repair [132]. In this line, accumulating evidence suggests that autophagy plays an important role in cell migration by regulating degradation of essential components involved in this process [133,134]. For example, autophagy has been shown to promote cell migration through the NBR1-dependent selective degradation of focal adhesion proteins in motile cells in a scratch-wound healing migration assay [135]. Additionally, autophagy induced by TLR signaling enhances cancer cell migration by stimulating the production of cytokines and chemokines necessary for their increased motility [136]. In breast cancer cells, the activation of autophagy has also been linked to enhanced migratory capacity [137,138]. Furthermore, autophagy regulators such as DRAM1 and p62 have been shown to play critical roles in controlling the migration and invasion of cancer stem cells [139]. In the context of tissue regeneration, the induction of autophagy is essential for keratinocyte migration, thereby facilitating wound healing in mice following injury [82,140]. Additionally, autophagy has been found to play an important role in the recruitment of blood cells to wound sites in Drosophila larvae and for the spreading of mouse macrophages after puncture wounding [141]. Recent studies have demonstrated that autophagy enhances nerve regeneration by promoting the migration of Schwann cells after nerve injury [142,143]. Furthermore, the activation of autophagy has been shown to stimulate the migration of dental pulp stem cells, contributing to pulp regeneration [144]. These studies suggest an important role of autophagy in regulating cell migration during wound healing and tissue repair. However, further research is needed to clarify the direct relationship between autophagy and cell migration in supporting regeneration across other organs in mammals and various experimental model organisms.

8. Autophagy in Tissue Remodeling and Scaling During Regeneration

The final phase of the regeneration process involves the perfect restoration of the shape, size, and proportions of the regenerating tissue, ensuring that it aligns seamlessly with the structure and function of the original tissue. Particularly in whole-body regeneration, this process involves the remodeling of pre-existing tissue and its integration with newly formed cells, culminating in the complete reestablishment of tissue morphology and functionality [20,145]. This relies on the coordinated interplay of various cellular mechanisms, such as cell death to shape the correct tissue structure [23,146,147,148,149], extracellular matrix (ECM) remodeling to support new tissue architecture [150,151,152], and the activation and regulation of the Hippo/YAP and Wnt pathways that guide cells in determining their positional identity and functional roles within the regenerating tissue [153,154,155,156]. Any dysregulation of these tightly orchestrated processes can result in incomplete or aberrant regeneration or tumorigenesis [156]. The autophagy pathway is widely recognized for its influence on all those processes. In studies in mammals, autophagy plays a crucial role in regulating cell death [157], contributes to the remodeling and deposition of extracellular matrix [158,159], and modulates key signaling pathways such as Hippo and Wnt signaling [160,161]. The critical role of autophagy in tissue remodeling in the context of regeneration has been well-documented in studies using planarians [162]. Studies in the planarian Girardia tigrina have highlighted the role of autophagy in cell death, particularly during planarian remodeling. The gene Gtdap-1—the ortholog of human death-associated protein-1 (DAP-1)—is specifically upregulated in regions and timeframes where remodeling occurs during regeneration, facilitating the proper scaling of the body. Additionally, Gtdap-1 expression increases during starvation in the ovaries, testes, and copulatory apparatus of sexual planarians, organs known to regress under starvation conditions. Moreover, transmission electron microscopy revealed that Gtdap-1 is expressed in cells exhibiting autophagic morphology. A subset of Gtdap-1-positive cells was also positive for cleaved caspase-3, indicating a link between autophagy and cell death. Furthermore, RNAi-mediated down-regulation of Gtdap-1 reduced caspase-3 activity and cell proliferation levels, leading to remodeling defects in planarians [163,164]. Similarly, a recent study demonstrated that RNAi-mediated knockdown of atg1 in planarians produces a regeneration phenotype comparable to that observed with Gtdap-1 knockdown. This includes a reduction in both cell death and cell proliferation [165]. In line with this, in regenerating Hydra, silencing of the serine protease inhibitor Kazal1 triggered excessive autophagy, resulting in severe tissue disorganization, massive gland cell death, and vacuolization of digestive cells. This suggests that autophagy dysregulation, as induced by Kazal1 knockdown, disrupts tissue organization, impairs cellular homeostasis, and compromises the survival of cells subjected to amputation-induced stress [166]. Thus, by orchestrating cell death and modulating key signaling pathways involved in tissue remodeling, the precise regulation of the autophagy pathway is essential during the late phases of tissue regeneration. Dysregulation of autophagy, such as excessive autophagic activity, can disrupt tissue organization and compromise structural integrity, ultimately hindering the resolution of the regenerative process. Future studies using diverse animal and tissue models will elucidate the direct role of autophagy in maintaining proper tissue structure and organization during the resolution phase of regeneration.

9. Connecting Autophagy and Senescence During Regeneration

Cellular senescence is a stress response characterized by a stable arrest of the cell cycle, accompanied by nuclear and cytoplasmic damage, as well as the secretion of a complex array of signaling molecules collectively known as the senescence-associated secretory phenotype (SASP) [167]. Senescence has traditionally been linked to aging and age-related diseases; however, accumulating evidence suggests that senescent cells also play essential physiological roles, including tumor suppression and contributions to embryonic development [168]. Furthermore, cellular senescence has recently emerged as a central component of the regeneration process in various regenerative species. For example, head amputation in cnidarians such as Hydractinia triggers senescence in a subset of cells near the injury site. These senescent cells secrete signals that promote the dedifferentiation and proliferation of neighboring cells, facilitating whole-body regeneration in these organisms [169]. In zebrafish, fin amputation causes the accumulation of senescent cells at the injury site, and pharmacological elimination of these cells has been shown to impair fin regeneration [170]. Similarly, during salamander limb regeneration, senescent cells accumulate at the wound site, where they secrete signals that promote cell cycle re-entry of neighboring cells, facilitating proper limb regeneration [171,172,173]. Additionally, senescent cells have been observed at wound sites following skin injury, where they contribute to promoting wound healing [174,175]. This evidence highlights cellular senescence as a key emerging factor in tissue regeneration and repair. Notably, autophagy has been shown to exhibit dual roles in the regulation of cellular senescence, functioning as both a pro-senescence and anti-senescence mechanism depending on its spatiotemporal dynamics [176,177]. For example, autophagy can prevent the induction of senescence by eliminating many of the stressors capable of inducing the senescence program, such as dysfunctional mitochondria and ROS [109]. Furthermore, selective autophagic degradation of specific proteins, such as the transcription factor GATA4, has been reported to inhibit senescence and suppress the expression of the SASP [178]. Conversely, autophagy has been shown to promote senescence by the selective degradation of nuclear components, including nuclear envelope proteins [179,180], and cytoplasmic chromatin fragments [181]. Additionally, autophagic activity has been observed to enhance the synthesis and secretion of SASP components during oncogene-induced senescence [182]. However, limited evidence exists regarding the interplay between autophagy and senescence in the context of tissue regeneration and repair. For instance, autophagy has been shown to prevent senescence in aged muscle stem cells by degrading dysfunctional mitochondria and mitigating oxidative stress [109]. Similarly, autophagy plays a key role in liver repair by preventing hepatocyte senescence after partial hepatectomy [183]. Senescent cells are increasingly recognized as key contributors to fibrosis, a pathological process characterized by excessive deposition of extracellular matrix (ECM) components due to dysregulation of normal wound-healing mechanisms [184]. Through the secretion of pro-fibrotic factors within the senescence-associated secretory phenotype (SASP)—notably transforming growth factor-beta (TGF-β), interleukin-11 (IL-11), and plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 (SERPINE1)—senescent cells actively drive fibrotic responses and contribute to the progression of fibrotic diseases [185,186,187,188,189]. Autophagy has also been implicated in the development of fibrosis [190,191,192,193]. However, research exploring the interplay between autophagy and senescence in fibrotic conditions remains limited. One study demonstrated that sustained autophagy induction is associated with enhanced mTORC2 activity and fibroblast senescence, which restricts myofibroblast differentiation and, consequently, may help prevent fibrosis [194]. Additionally, autophagy is known to influence the senescence-associated secretory phenotype (SASP) by promoting protein secretion through the formation of a specialized cellular compartment known as the target of rapamycin (TOR)-autophagy spatial coupling compartment (TASCC) [182]. In this context, autophagy has been shown to enhance the expression and secretion of fibrotic factors, likely through the SASP, in senescent tubular cells following acute kidney injury [195]. Consistent with this, another study demonstrated that autophagy promotes the secretion of profibrotic factors via the formation of the TASCC in senescent renal tubular cells after kidney injury, ultimately contributing to kidney fibrosis [196]. This highlights the intricate interplay between autophagy and senescence in tissue repair. A deeper understanding of their complementary roles could offer valuable insights into how the autophagy pathway promotes a pro-healing senescent state, facilitating organ repair and regeneration.

10. Autophagy and Lipid Metabolism During Tissue Regeneration

Lipid metabolism is crucial for tissue regeneration and repair, particularly in the liver [197] and muscle [198,199] and for cell differentiation during planarian regeneration [200,201]. Autophagy, in turn, plays an essential role in regulating lipid metabolism [202] and is particularly important for maintaining energy homeostasis, especially in the liver [183]. For instance, lipophagy facilitates energy production by breaking down stored lipids into free fatty acids, which are subsequently oxidized in mitochondria to generate ATP. This energy is critical for liver repair, as the process requires substantial energy to support cell proliferation and tissue growth after partial hepatectomy [183,203]. Studies have demonstrated that the inhibition of autophagy via Atg7 knockdown in hepatocytes leads to reduced lipid droplet accumulation and impairs liver repair following partial hepatectomy in mice [204]. Interestingly, the stimulation of autophagy in macrophages using trehalose reduced intracellular lipid droplet accumulation and enhanced repair and remyelination in models of CNS demyelination [205]. Additionally, studies in muscle have revealed that elevated lipophagy in Prmt5 knockout mice leads to depletion of lipid droplets, impairing muscle regeneration following cardiotoxin (CTX)-induced injury [206]. While these findings suggest a critical role for lipophagy in tissue regeneration, direct evidence establishing a clear link between lipophagy and regenerative processes remains limited. Maintaining a delicate balance between lipid degradation and lipid droplet accumulation appears to be crucial for achieving optimal regeneration outcomes. Undoubtedly, the specific contribution of lipophagy to tissue regeneration represents an intriguing and promising area for future research, with the potential to deepen our understanding of how lipid metabolism and autophagy coordinate to drive effective tissue repair and regeneration.

11. Autophagy as a Therapeutic Target for Tissue Repair and Regeneration

Considering the important role of autophagy in regulating various cellular functions, and its significant involvement in human health and diseases, a diverse range of activators and inhibitors has been developed to modulate the autophagy activity under specific physiological and pathological conditions. Among the most well-known autophagy activators are rapamycin, resveratrol, metformin, and trehalose with their mechanisms of action extensively reviewed elsewhere [26]. A recent study demonstrated that systemic administration of rapamycin, a well-known inhibitor of mTOR, enhanced muscle regeneration in mice with skeletal muscle dysfunction. This effect was attributed to the ability of rapamycin to activate autophagy in muscle stem cells, thereby improving their activation, proliferation, and myogenic potential [207]. Similarly, rapamycin-induced autophagy promoted peripheral nerve regeneration after sciatic nerve crush injury in rats [208]. In line with these findings, resveratrol, a natural compound found in the skin of red grapes and a potent autophagy inducer via mTOR inhibition and AMPK activation [209,210], has demonstrated regenerative benefits across multiple models. It promoted liver repair in mice following drug-induced liver damage [211], as well as axonal and peripheral nerve regeneration after injury [212,213]. Interestingly, in rodents, resveratrol enhanced periodontal bone regeneration by improving the function and regenerative capacity of mesenchymal stem cell aggregates, a promising strategy in regenerative medicine [214]. Similarly, metformin, an antidiabetic agent and a well-known autophagy inducer via several signaling pathways, including the AMPK/mTOR pathway and the activation of different sirtuins (e.g., SIRT 1) [215], has demonstrated regenerative benefits across various models. In zebrafish, metformin accelerates heart regeneration by inducing autophagy [216]. In rodent models, metformin administration promoted axonal regeneration following injury [217,218]. As expected, autophagy inhibition leads to impaired tissue regeneration across various animal models and experimental conditions. For instance, pharmacological inhibition of autophagic flux in Hydra using Bafilomycin A1, a well-established inhibitor of the late phase of autophagy, or with the ULK1 inhibitor SBI-0206965, effectively blocked head regeneration in these highly regenerative organisms [219]. Similarly, in planarians, treatment with the autophagy inhibitor 3-methyladenine (3-MA), a PI3K inhibitor that disrupts autophagosome formation, significantly impaired the regeneration of both head and tail structures [220]. Considering this, and given that both planarians and Hydra have the extraordinary ability to undergo whole-body regeneration, understanding how these organisms regulate autophagy to achieve complete regeneration represents an exciting avenue for future research. However, the study of autophagy in these organisms is still in its early stages. A deeper understanding of this process could reveal novel regulatory mechanisms and signaling pathways that may be harnessed for developing therapeutic interventions aimed at regenerating human organs and tissues, rather than merely repairing damage, with all the associated biological and clinical implications. In other models such as in zebrafish, autophagy inhibition using chloroquine (CQ), another well-characterized inhibitor of autophagic flux, counteracted the pro-regenerative effects of Rehmanniae Radix Praeparata (RRP), a traditional Chinese medicine, during fin regeneration following amputation [221]. In mammalian systems, the inhibition of autophagy with 3-MA impaired muscle regeneration in mice following myotoxic injury [69] and reduced nerve regeneration in rats after nerve crush injury [208]. Similarly, Bafilomycin A1 treatment disrupted axon regeneration in C. elegans following laser-induced axotomy [222]. Collectively, these studies highlight the potential of autophagy modulation as a promising therapeutic strategy for enhancing the regeneration of specific tissues and organs (Figure 5). Targeting the autophagy pathway holds significant promise for preventing or reversing human diseases associated with the limited regenerative capacity of our tissues.

Autophagy as a Target for Mammalian Skin Wound Healing

Skin wound healing is a crucial repair process in mammals, and autophagy has been extensively studied for its significant role in regulating this complex biological response [223,224]. For example, autophagy has been shown to promote the migration and differentiation of keratinocytes during the pro-healing effects of fibroblast growth factor 21 (FGF21) in skin wounds [140]. Notably, FGF21 induces autophagic flux through TFEB activation, contributing to regulating extracellular matrix degradation [225], and has also been implicated in facilitating nerve regeneration following sciatic nerve injury [226]. Similarly, autophagy has been found to enhance vascularization and wound healing, through the paracrine secretion of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) in a full-thickness cutaneous wound mice model [227]. Furthermore, autophagy has been reported to elevate the levels of multiple growth factors, including basic fibroblast growth factor (bFGF), epidermal growth factor (EGF), connective tissue growth factor (CTGF), transforming growth factor-beta (TGF-β), and VEGF in skin tissues. This upregulation may underlie the pro-healing effects of autophagy during tissue expansion, a technique in which mechanical stretch stimuli promote skin wound healing [113]. Another study revealed that autophagy in keratinocytes is necessary not only for keratinocyte migration but also for their proliferation, as well as for the activation of dermal fibroblasts and the recruitment of immune cells, including macrophages, neutrophils, and mast cells, which collectively facilitate wound healing in mice [82]. Consequently, several pharmacological strategies targeting autophagy activation have been explored to accelerate wound healing. For instance, rapamycin treatment in a rat model of burn wounds facilitated wound healing by increasing autophagy activity [228]. Similarly, resveratrol accelerated skin wound healing in murine models subjected to various types of injuries and cutaneous wounds [229,230,231,232]. Topical application of metformin has also been shown to significantly enhance skin repair and wound healing across different cutaneous wound models [229,233,234]. Trehalose, a natural disaccharide, and potent autophagy enhancer [235] via TFEB activation [236] or blocking glucose transport [237,238,239] demonstrated pro-regenerative effects in cutaneous wound healing. These effects are mediated through the induction of a pro-healing senescence-like state in fibroblasts [240] and the upregulation of key autophagy proteins, including ATG5 and ATG7 [241]. Epigallocatechin gallate (EGCG), the primary active compound in green tea, facilitated wound healing in diabetic rats by stimulating autophagy in keratinocytes, which in turn promoted their migration and proliferation [242]. Another study in mice demonstrated that exosomes derived from stem cells from human exfoliated deciduous teeth (SHED) enhanced wound healing while reducing itching, primarily by stimulating macrophage autophagy [243]. However, although the previous studies highlight the beneficial role of autophagy in wound healing, other findings suggest contrasting effects. For instance, the deletion of the autophagy-related gene Atg7 in mice endothelial cells has been shown to enhance skin wound healing, accompanied by increased recruitment of macrophages and lymphocytes during the early phases of the healing process [244]. Similarly, inhibition of autophagy with 3-MA administration significantly improved wound healing in a mouse model of full-thickness wounds by modulating the YAP/IL-33 signaling pathway [97]. Additionally, inhibition of autophagic flux through bafilomycin treatment in diabetic mice accelerated wound healing by promoting cell proliferation, enhancing collagen production, and regulating the inflammatory response [245]. In another study, autophagy induced by advanced glycation end products (AGEs) was found to promote macrophage polarization to the pro-inflammatory M1 phenotype, leading to excessive inflammation and impaired wound healing in diabetic mouse skin and patients with chronic wounds. Notably, inhibition of autophagy with 3-MA completely rescued the delayed wound healing caused by AGEs [246]. Furthermore, other studies have reported that rapamycin treatment impairs wound healing in both mice [247] and patients with cutaneous carcinogenesis [248]. In summary, this evidence highlights the complex and context-dependent role of autophagy in wound healing. This complexity requires a precise understanding of which phases of the wound healing process, or which specific cell types, benefit from either the activation or inhibition of autophagy at a given time. A promising avenue for exploration may involve the development of strategies that combine autophagy inducers and inhibitors, similar to those already employed in cancer therapy [249]. Such innovative approaches could pave the way for more effective and targeted therapeutic strategies for wound healing in humans, ultimately making a significant impact on healthcare and society.

12. Conclusions

Together, there is data strongly suggesting that the autophagy pathway is critical in promoting various cellular mechanisms comprising tissue regeneration and repair across regenerative species (summarized in Figure 4). Autophagy contributes to the regeneration process by: (1) helping in the sensing and response to injuries and tissue damage; (2) facilitating an immediate immune response and promoting the clearance of invading pathogens following tissue injury; and (3) supporting the cell cycle re-entry, proliferation and migration of cells in response to damage. Furthermore, we anticipated the connection between autophagy and cellular senescence, emphasizing the importance of investigating the contribution of the autophagy machinery in inducing a pro-healing senescent state during tissue regeneration. Pharmacological modulators of autophagy have demonstrated effectiveness in promoting and accelerating the repair and regeneration of damaged tissues. These findings suggest that targeting autophagy could serve as a viable strategy to modulate tissue repair and regeneration, underscoring its potential relevance for therapeutic applications in regenerative medicine. Although it is evident that autophagy plays a vital role in tissue regeneration, many aspects of this relationship remain poorly understood. Elucidating the molecular mechanisms by which autophagy regulates and orchestrates the diverse processes involved in regeneration holds significant potential for the development of novel therapeutic strategies aimed at preventing and even reversing human diseases, including cancer and age-related conditions.

Author Contributions

Writing—original draft preparation, D.M.-B.; writing—review and editing, C.G.-E. and T.A.; funding acquisition, C.G.-E. and T.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by Agència de Gestió d’Ajuts Universitaris i de Recerca de la Generalitat de Catalunya (grant number: 2021SGR00293); Consolidación Investigadora MICIU/AEI/10.13039/501100011033 and European Union NextGenerationEU/PRTR (grant number: CNS2023-144759 to CGE); Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades (grant numbers: PID2023-149733NB-I00 to TA and CGE) financed by MICIU/AEI/10.13039/501100011033 and by FEDER, UE.; Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación (grant number FU2020-116372GB-I00 to TA); Secretaria de Educación, Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación de la Ciudad de México (grant number SECTEI/168/2021 to DMB). CGE is a Serra Húnter Fellow (Generalitat de Catalunya).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Galluzzi, L.; Baehrecke, E.H.; Ballabio, A.; Boya, P.; Bravo-San Pedro, J.M.; Cecconi, F.; Choi, A.M.; Chu, C.T.; Codogno, P.; Colombo, M.I.; et al. Molecular Definitions of Autophagy and Related Processes. EMBO J. 2017, 36, 1811–1836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Wang, L.; Klionsky, D.J.; Shen, H.M. The Emerging Mechanisms and Functions of Microautophagy. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2023, 24, 186–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Kaushik, S.; Cuervo, A.M. The Coming of Age of Chaperone-Mediated Autophagy. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2018, 19, 365–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Morishita, H.; Mizushima, N. Diverse Cellular Roles of Autophagy. Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol. 2019, 35, 453–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Norberto Vargas, J.S.; Hamasaki, M.; Kawabata, T.; Youle, R.J.; Yoshimori, T. The Mechanisms and Roles of Selective Autophagy. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2023, 24, 167–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Yamamoto, H.; Zhang, S.; Mizushima, N. Autophagy Genes in Biology and Disease. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2023, 24, 382–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Aman, Y.; Schmauck-Medina, T.; Hansen, M.; Morimoto, R.I.; Simon, A.K.; Bjedov, I.; Palikaras, K.; Simonsen, A.; Johansen, T.; Tavernarakis, N.; et al. Autophagy in Healthy Aging and Disease. Nat. Aging 2021, 1, 634–650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Levine, B.; Kroemer, G. Biological Functions of Autophagy Genes: A Disease Perspective. Cell 2019, 176, 11–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Chang, N.C. Autophagy and Stem Cells: Self-Eating for Self-Renewal. Front. Cell Dev. Biol. 2020, 8, 138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Song, Q.; Liu, H.; Zhen, H.; Zhao, B. Autophagy and Its Role in Regeneration and Remodeling within Invertebrate. Cell Biosci. 2020, 10, 111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Seifert, A.W.; Duncan, E.M.; Zayas, R.M. Enduring Questions in Regenerative Biology and the Search for Answers. Commun. Biol. 2023, 6, 1139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Goldman, J.A.; Poss, K.D. Gene Regulatory Programmes of Tissue Regeneration. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2020, 21, 511–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Owlarn, S.; Klenner, F.; Schmidt, D.; Rabert, F.; Tomasso, A.; Reuter, H.; Mulaw, M.A.; Moritz, S.; Gentile, L.; Weidinger, G.; et al. Generic Wound Signals Initiate Regeneration in Missing-Tissue Contexts. Nat. Commun. 2017, 8, 2282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Abnave, P.; Ghigo, E. Role of the Immune System in Regeneration and Its Dynamic Interplay with Adult Stem Cells. Semin. Cell Dev. Biol. 2019, 87, 160–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Peña, O.A.; Martin, P. Cellular and Molecular Mechanisms of Skin Wound Healing. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2024, 25, 599–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Ricci, L.; Srivastava, M. Wound-Induced Cell Proliferation during Animal Regeneration. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Dev. Biol. 2018, 7, e321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Aztekin, C. Mechanisms of regeneration: To what extent do they recapitulate development? Development 2024, 151, dev202541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Cebrià, F.; Adell, T.; Saló, E. Rebuilding a Planarian: From Early Signaling to Final Shape. Int. J. Dev. Biol. 2018, 62, 537–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. WalczyńSKa, K.S.; Zhu, L.; Liang, Y. Insights into the Role of the Wnt Signaling Pathway in the Regeneration of Animal Model Systems. Int. J. Dev. Biol. 2023, 67, 65–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Pellettieri, J. Regenerative Tissue Remodeling in Planarians – The Mysteries of Morphallaxis. Semin. Cell Dev. Biol. 2019, 87, 13–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Thommen, A.; Werner, S.; Frank, O.; Philipp, J.; Knittelfelder, O.; Quek, Y.; Fahmy, K.; Shevchenko, A.; Friedrich, B.M.; Jülicher, F.; et al. Body Size-Dependent Energy Storage Causes Kleiber’s Law Scaling of the Metabolic Rate in Planarians. eLife 2019, 4, e38187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Felix, D.A.; Gutiérrez-Gutiérrez, Ó.; Espada, L.; Thems, A.; González-Estévez, C. It Is Not All about Regeneration: Planarians Striking Power to Stand Starvation. Semin. Cell Dev. Biol. 2019, 87, 169–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Schad, E.G.; Petersen, C.P. STRIPAK Limits Stem Cell Differentiation of a WNT Signaling Center to Control Planarian Axis Scaling. Curr. Biol. 2020, 30, 254–263.e2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Dikic, I.; Elazar, Z. Mechanism and Medical Implications of Mammalian Autophagy. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2018, 19, 349–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Yu, L.; Chen, Y.; Tooze, S.A. Autophagy Pathway: Cellular and Molecular Mechanisms. Autophagy 2018, 14, 207–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Lu, G.; Wang, Y.; Shi, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Huang, C.; He, W.; Wang, C.; Shen, H.M. Autophagy in Health and Disease: From Molecular Mechanisms to Therapeutic Target. MedComm 2022, 3, e150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. He, C.; Klionsky, D.J. Regulation Mechanisms and Signaling Pathways of Autophagy. Annu. Rev. Genet. 2009, 43, 67–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Srivastava, M. Beyond Casual Resemblance: Rigorous Frameworks for Comparing Regeneration Across Species. Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol. 2021, 37, 415–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Poss, K.D.; Tanaka, E.M. Hallmarks of Regeneration. Cell Stem Cell 2024, 31, 1244–1261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Vogg, M.C.; Galliot, B.; Tsiairis, C.D. Model Systems for Regeneration: Hydra. Development 2019, 146, dev177212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Ivankovic, M.; Haneckova, R.; Thommen, A.; Grohme, M.A.; Vila-Farré, M.; Werner, S.; Rink, J.C. Model Systems for Regeneration: Planarians. Development 2019, 146, dev167684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Marques, I.J.; Lupi, E.; Mercader, N. Model Systems for Regeneration: Zebrafish. Development 2019, 146, dev167692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Joven, A.; Elewa, A.; Simon, A. Model Systems for Regeneration: Salamanders. Development 2019, 146, dev167700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Fox, D.T.; Cohen, E.; Smith-Bolton, R. Model Systems for Regeneration: Drosophila. Development 2020, 147, dev173781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Cordeiro, J.V.; Jacinto, A. The Role of Transcription-Independent Damage Signals in the Initiation of Epithelial Wound Healing. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2013, 14, 249–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Niethammer, P. The Early Wound Signals. Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 2016, 40, 17–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Vénéreau, E.; Ceriotti, C.; Bianchi, M.E. DAMPs from Cell Death to New Life. Front. Immunol. 2015, 6, 422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Scaffidi, P.; Misteli, T.; Bianchi, M.E. Release of Chromatin Protein HMGB1 by Necrotic Cells Triggers Inflammation. Nature 2002, 418, 191–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Tamai, K.; Yamazaki, T.; Chino, T.; Ishii, M.; Otsuru, S.; Kikuchi, Y.; Iinuma, S.; Saga, K.; Nimura, K.; Shimbo, T.; et al. PDGFRα-Positive Cells in Bone Marrow Are Mobilized by High Mobility Group Box 1 (HMGB1) to Regenerate Injured Epithelia. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2011, 108, 6609–6614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Nakagawa, S.; Omura, T.; Yonezawa, A.; Yano, I.; Nakagawa, T.; Matsubara, K. Extracellular Nucleotides from Dying Cells Act as Molecular Signals to Promote Wound Repair in Renal Tubular Injury. Am. J. Physiol. Ren. Physiol. 2014, 307, 1404–1411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Weihs, A.M.; Fuchs, C.; Teuschl, A.H.; Hartinger, J.; Slezak, P.; Mittermayr, R.; Redl, H.; Junger, W.G.; Sitte, H.H.; Rünzler, D. Shock Wave Treatment Enhances Cell Proliferation and Improves Wound Healing by ATP Release-Coupled Extracellular Signal-Regulated Kinase (ERK) Activation. J. Biol. Chem. 2014, 289, 27090–27104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Gonzales, E.; Julien, B.; Serrière-Lanneau, V.; Nicou, A.; Doignon, I.; Lagoudakis, L.; Garcin, I.; Azoulay, D.; Duclos-Vallée, J.C.; Castaing, D.; et al. ATP Release after Partial Hepatectomy Regulates Liver Regeneration in the Rat. J. Hepatol. 2010, 52, 54–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Thorburn, J.; Horita, H.; Redzic, J.; Hansen, K.; Frankel, A.E.; Thorburn, A. Autophagy Regulates Selective HMGB1 Release in Tumor Cells That Are Destined to Die. Cell Death Differ. 2009, 16, 175–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Kim, Y.H.; Kwak, M.S.; Lee, B.; Shin, J.M.; Aum, S.; Park, I.H.; Lee, M.G.; Shin, J.S. Secretory Autophagy Machinery and Vesicular Trafficking Are Involved in HMGB1 Secretion. Autophagy 2021, 17, 2345–2362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Ayna, G.; Krysko, D.V.; Kaczmarek, A.; Petrovski, G.; Vandenabeele, P.; Fésüs, L. ATP Release from Dying Autophagic Cells and Their Phagocytosis Are Crucial for Inflammasome Activation in Macrophages. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e40069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Michaud, M.; Martins, I.; Sukkurwala, A.Q.; Adjemian, S.; Ma, Y.; Pellegatti, P.; Shen, S.; Kepp, O.; Scoazec, M.; Mignot, G.; et al. Autophagy-Dependent Anticancer Immune Responses Induced by Chemotherapeutic Agents in Mice. Science (1979) 2011, 334, 1573–1577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Fader, C.M.; Aguilera, M.O.; Colombo, M.I. ATP Is Released from Autophagic Vesicles to the Extracellular Space in a VAMP7-Dependent Manner. Autophagy 2012, 8, 1741–1756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Tang, D.; Kang, R.; Livesey, K.M.; Cheh, C.W.; Farkas, A.; Loughran, P.; Hoppe, G.; Bianchi, M.E.; Tracey, K.J.; Zeh, H.J.; et al. Endogenous HMGB1 Regulates Autophagy. J. Cell Biol. 2010, 190, 881–892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Tang, D.; Kang, R.; Livesey, K.M.; Zeh, H.J.; Lotze, M.T. High Mobility Group Box 1 (HMGB1) Activates an Autophagic Response to Oxidative Stress. Antioxid. Redox Signal 2011, 15, 2185–2195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Shang, J.; Zhao, F.; Cao, Y.; Ping, F.; Wang, W.; Li, Y. HMGB1 Mediates Lipopolysaccharide-Induced Macrophage Autophagy and Pyroptosis. BMC Mol. Cell Biol. 2023, 24, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Biswas, D.; Qureshi, O.S.; Lee, W.Y.; Croudace, J.E.; Mura, M.; Lammas, D.A. ATP-Induced Autophagy Is Associated with Rapid Killing of Intracellular Mycobacteria within Human Monocytes/Macrophages. BMC Immunol. 2008, 9, 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Takenouchi, T.; Nakai, M.; Iwamaru, Y.; Sugama, S.; Tsukimoto, M.; Fujita, M.; Wei, J.; Sekigawa, A.; Sato, M.; Kojima, S.; et al. The Activation of P2X7 Receptor Impairs Lysosomal Functions and Stimulates the Release of Autophagolysosomes in Microglial Cells. J. Immunol. 2009, 182, 2051–2062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Hong, Y.; Boiti, A.; Vallone, D.; Foulkes, N.S. Reactive Oxygen Species Signaling and Oxidative Stress: Transcriptional Regulation and Evolution. Antioxidants 2024, 13, 312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Sies, H.; Jones, D.P. Reactive Oxygen Species (ROS) as Pleiotropic Physiological Signalling Agents. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2020, 21, 363–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Love, N.R.; Chen, Y.; Ishibashi, S.; Kritsiligkou, P.; Lea, R.; Koh, Y.; Gallop, J.L.; Dorey, K.; Amaya, E. Amputation-Induced Reactive Oxygen Species Are Required for Successful Xenopus Tadpole Tail Regeneration. Nat. Cell Biol. 2013, 15, 222–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Gauron, C.; Rampon, C.; Bouzaffour, M.; Ipendey, E.; Teillon, J.; Volovitch, M.; Vriz, S. Sustained Production of ROS Triggers Compensatory Proliferation and Is Required for Regeneration to Proceed. Sci. Rep. 2013, 3, 2084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Santabárbara-Ruiz, P.; López-Santillán, M.; Martínez-Rodríguez, I.; Binagui-Casas, A.; Pérez, L.; Milán, M.; Corominas, M.; Serras, F. ROS-Induced JNK and P38 Signaling Is Required for Unpaired Cytokine Activation during Drosophila Regeneration. PLoS Genet. 2015, 11, e1005595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Pirotte, N.; Stevens, A.S.; Fraguas, S.; Plusquin, M.; Van Roten, A.; Van Belleghem, F.; Paesen, R.; Ameloot, M.; Cebrià, F.; Artois, T.; et al. Reactive Oxygen Species in Planarian Regeneration: An Upstream Necessity for Correct Patterning and Brain Formation. Oxid. Med. Cell Longev. 2015, 2015, 92476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Jaenen, V.; Fraguas, S.; Bijnens, K.; Heleven, M.; Artois, T.; Romero, R.; Smeets, K.; Cebrià, F. Reactive Oxygen Species Rescue Regeneration after Silencing the MAPK–ERK Signaling Pathway in Schmidtea Mediterranea. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Wang, G.; Yang, F.; Zhou, W.; Xiao, N.; Luo, M.; Tang, Z. The Initiation of Oxidative Stress and Therapeutic Strategies in Wound Healing. Biomed. Pharmacother. 2023, 157, 114004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Zhou, J.; Li, X.Y.; Liu, Y.J.; Feng, J.; Wu, Y.; Shen, H.M.; Lu, G.D. Full-Coverage Regulations of Autophagy by ROS: From Induction to Maturation. Autophagy 2022, 18, 1240–1255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Scherz-Shouval, R.; Shvets, E.; Fass, E.; Shorer, H.; Gil, L.; Elazar, Z. Reactive Oxygen Species Are Essential for Autophagy and Specifically Regulate the Activity of Atg4. EMBO J. 2007, 26, 1749–1760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Zmijewski, J.W.; Banerjee, S.; Bae, H.; Friggeri, A.; Lazarowski, E.R.; Abraham, E. Exposure to Hydrogen Peroxide Induces Oxidation and Activation of AMP-Activated Protein Kinase. J. Biol. Chem. 2010, 285, 33154–33164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Kim, J.; Kim, Y.C.; Fang, C.; Russell, R.C.; Kim, J.H.; Fan, W.; Liu, R.; Zhong, Q.; Guan, K.L. Differential Regulation of Distinct Vps34 Complexes by AMPK in Nutrient Stress and Autophagy. Cell 2013, 152, 290–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Wang, H.; Wang, N.; Xu, D.; Ma, Q.; Chen, Y.; Xu, S.; Xia, Q.; Zhang, Y.; Prehn, J.H.M.; Wang, G.; et al. Oxidation of Multiple MiT/TFE Transcription Factors Links Oxidative Stress to Transcriptional Control of Autophagy and Lysosome Biogenesis. Autophagy 2020, 16, 1683–1696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Schofield, J.H.; Schafer, Z.T. Mitochondrial Reactive Oxygen Species and Mitophagy: A Complex and Nuanced Relationship. Antioxid. Redox Signal 2021, 34, 517–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Jiang, T.; Harder, B.; Rojo De La Vega, M.; Wong, P.K.; Chapman, E.; Zhang, D.D. P62 Links Autophagy and Nrf2 Signaling. Free Radic. Biol. Med. 2015, 88, 199–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Asano, J.; Sato, T.; Ichinose, S.; Kajita, M.; Onai, N.; Shimizu, S.; Ohteki, T. Intrinsic Autophagy Is Required for the Maintenance of Intestinal Stem Cells and for Irradiation-Induced Intestinal Regeneration. Cell Rep. 2017, 20, 1050–1060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Nichenko, A.S.; Southern, W.M.; Atuan, M.; Luan, J.; Peissig, K.B.; Foltz, S.J.; Beedle, A.M.; Warren, G.L.; Call, J.A. Mitochondrial Maintenance via Autophagy Contributes to Functional Skeletal Muscle Regeneration and Remodeling. Am. J. Physiol. Cell Physiol. 2016, 311, 190–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Bai, H.; Fang, C.W.; Shi, Y.; Zhai, S.; Jiang, A.; Li, Y.N.; Wang, L.; Liu, Q.L.; Zhou, G.Y.; Cao, J.H.; et al. Mitochondria-Derived H2O2 Triggers Liver Regeneration via FoxO3a Signaling Pathway after Partial Hepatectomy in Mice. Cell Death Dis. 2023, 14, 216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Forbes, S.J.; Rosenthal, N. Preparing the Ground for Tissue Regeneration: From Mechanism to Therapy. Nat. Med. 2014, 20, 857–869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Aurora, A.B.; Olson, E.N. Immune Modulation of Stem Cells and Regeneration. Cell Stem Cell 2014, 15, 14–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Wynn, T.A.; Vannella, K.M. Macrophages in Tissue Repair, Regeneration, and Fibrosis. Immunity 2016, 44, 450–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Julier, Z.; Park, A.J.; Briquez, P.S.; Martino, M.M. Promoting Tissue Regeneration by Modulating the Immune System. Acta Biomater. 2017, 53, 13–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Caballero-Sánchez, N.; Alonso-Alonso, S.; Nagy, L. Regenerative Inflammation: When Immune Cells Help to Re-Build Tissues. FEBS J. 2024, 291, 1597–1614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Shi, C.S.; Kehrl, J.H. TRAF6 and A20 Regulate Lysine 63-Linked Ubiquitination of Beclin-1 to Control TLR4-Induced Autophagy. Sci. Signal 2010, 3, ra42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Chuang, S.Y.; Yang, C.H.; Chou, C.C.; Chiang, Y.P.; Chuang, T.H.; Hsu, L.C. TLR-Induced PAI-2 Expression Suppresses IL-1β Processing via Increasing Autophagy and NLRP3 Degradation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2013, 110, 16079–16084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Travassos, L.H.; Carneiro, L.A.M.; Ramjeet, M.; Hussey, S.; Kim, Y.G.; Magalhes, J.G.; Yuan, L.; Soares, F.; Chea, E.; Le Bourhis, L.; et al. Nod1 and Nod2 Direct Autophagy by Recruiting ATG16L1 to the Plasma Membrane at the Site of Bacterial Entry. Nat. Immunol. 2010, 11, 55–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Cooney, R.; Baker, J.; Brain, O.; Danis, B.; Pichulik, T.; Allan, P.; Ferguson, D.J.P.; Campbell, B.J.; Jewell, D.; Simmons, A. NOD2 Stimulation Induces Autophagy in Dendritic Cells Influencing Bacterial Handling and Antigen Presentation. Nat. Med. 2010, 16, 90–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Lee, H.-M.; Shin, D.-M.; Yuk, J.-M.; Shi, G.; Choi, D.-K.; Lee, S.-H.; Huang, S.M.; Kim, J.-M.; Kim, C.D.; Lee, J.-H.; et al. Autophagy Negatively Regulates Keratinocyte Inflammatory Responses via Scaffolding Protein P62/SQSTM1. J. Immunol. 2011, 186, 1248–1258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Shen, Q.; Zhang, X.; Li, Q.; Zhang, J.; Lai, H.; Gan, H.; Du, X.; Li, M. TLR2 Protects Cisplatin-Induced Acute Kidney Injury Associated with Autophagy via PI3K/Akt Signaling Pathway. J. Cell Biochem. 2019, 120, 4366–4374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Qiang, L.; Yang, S.; Cui, Y.H.; He, Y.Y. Keratinocyte Autophagy Enables the Activation of Keratinocytes and Fibroblasts and Facilitates Wound Healing. Autophagy 2021, 17, 2128–2143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Das, L.M.; Binko, A.M.; Traylor, Z.P.; Peng, H.; Lu, K.Q. Vitamin D Improves Sunburns by Increasing Autophagy in M2 Macrophages. Autophagy 2019, 15, 813–826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Yang, Q.; Liu, T.T.; Lin, H.; Zhang, M.; Wei, J.; Luo, W.W.; Hu, Y.H.; Zhong, B.; Hu, M.M.; Shu, H.B. TRIM32-TAX1BP1-Dependent Selective Autophagic Degradation of TRIF Negatively Regulates TLR3/4-Mediated Innate Immune Responses. PLoS Pathog. 2017, 13, e1006600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Samie, M.; Lim, J.; Verschueren, E.; Baughman, J.M.; Peng, I.; Wong, A.; Kwon, Y.; Senbabaoglu, Y.; Hackney, J.A.; Keir, M.; et al. Selective Autophagy of the Adaptor TRIF Regulates Innate Inflammatory Signaling Article. Nat. Immunol. 2018, 19, 246–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Shi, C.S.; Shenderov, K.; Huang, N.N.; Kabat, J.; Abu-Asab, M.; Fitzgerald, K.A.; Sher, A.; Kehrl, J.H. Activation of Autophagy by Inflammatory Signals Limits IL-1β Production by Targeting Ubiquitinated Inflammasomes for Destruction. Nat. Immunol. 2012, 13, 255–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Zhong, Z.; Umemura, A.; Sanchez-Lopez, E.; Liang, S.; Shalapour, S.; Wong, J.; He, F.; Boassa, D.; Perkins, G.; Ali, S.R.; et al. NF-ΚB Restricts Inflammasome Activation via Elimination of Damaged Mitochondria. Cell 2016, 164, 896–910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Harris, J.; Hartman, M.; Roche, C.; Zeng, S.G.; O’Shea, A.; Sharp, F.A.; Lambe, E.M.; Creagh, E.M.; Golenbock, D.T.; Tschopp, J.; et al. Autophagy Controls IL-1β Secretion by Targeting Pro-IL-1β for Degradation. J. Biol. Chem. 2011, 286, 9587–9597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Eming, S.A.; Wynn, T.A.; Martin, P. Inflammation and Metabolism in Tissue Repair and Regeneration. Science 2017, 356, 1026–1030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Karin, M.; Clevers, H. Reparative Inflammation Takes Charge of Tissue Regeneration. Nature 2016, 529, 307–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Landén, N.X.; Li, D.; Ståhle, M. Transition from Inflammation to Proliferation: A Critical Step during Wound Healing. Cell. Mol. Life Sci. 2016, 73, 3861–3885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Wen, J.H.; Li, D.Y.; Liang, S.; Yang, C.; Tang, J.X.; Liu, H.F. Macrophage Autophagy in Macrophage Polarization, Chronic Inflammation and Organ Fibrosis. Front. Immunol. 2022, 13, 946832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Feng, X.; Ji, Y.; Zhang, C.; Jin, T.; Li, J.; Guo, J. CCL6 Promotes M2 Polarization and Inhibits Macrophage Autophagy by Activating PI3-Kinase/Akt Signalling Pathway during Skin Wound Healing. Exp. Dermatol. 2023, 32, 403–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Kawai, T.; Akira, S. The Role of Pattern-Recognition Receptors in Innate Immunity: Update on Toll-like Receptors. Nat. Immunol. 2010, 11, 373–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Takeuchi, O.; Akira, S. Pattern Recognition Receptors and Inflammation. Cell 2010, 140, 805–820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Deshmane, S.L.; Kremlev, S.; Amini, S.; Sawaya, B.E. Monocyte Chemoattractant Protein-1 (MCP-1): An Overview. J. Interferon Cytokine Res. 2009, 29, 313–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Gao, Y.; Luo, C.; Rui, T.; Fan, Y.; Yao, Y.; Shen, H.; Gao, C.; Wang, T.; Wang, H.; Chen, X.; et al. Autophagy Inhibition Facilitates Wound Closure Partially Dependent on the YAP/IL-33 Signaling in a Mouse Model of Skin Wound Healing. FASEB J. 2021, 35, e21920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Dupont, N.; Jiang, S.; Pilli, M.; Ornatowski, W.; Bhattacharya, D.; Deretic, V. Autophagy-Based Unconventional Secretory Pathway for Extracellular Delivery of IL-1β. EMBO J. 2011, 30, 4701–4711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Zhang, M.; Kenny, S.J.; Ge, L.; Xu, K.; Schekman, R. Translocation of Interleukin-1β into a Vesicle Intermediate in Autophagy- Mediated Secretion. eLife 2015, 4, e11205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Passamaneck, Y.J.; Martindale, M.Q. Cell Proliferation Is Necessary for the Regeneration of Oral Structures in the Anthozoan Cnidarian Nematostella Vectensis. BMC Dev. Biol. 2012, 12, 34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Srivastava, M.; Mazza-Curll, K.L.; Van Wolfswinkel, J.C.; Reddien, P.W. Whole-Body Acoel Regeneration Is Controlled by Wnt and Bmp-Admp Signaling. Curr. Biol. 2014, 24, 1107–1113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Wenemoser, D.; Reddien, P.W. Planarian Regeneration Involves Distinct Stem Cell Responses to Wounds and Tissue Absence. Dev. Biol. 2010, 344, 979–991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. Bosch, M.; Baguñà, J.; Serras, F. Origin and Proliferation of Blastema Cells during Regeneration of Drosophila Wing Imaginal Discs. Int. J. Dev. Biol. 2008, 52, 1043–1050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Nechiporuk, A.; Keating, M.T. A proliferation gradient between proximal and msxb-expressing distal blastema directs zebrafish fin regeneration. Development 2002, 129, 2607–2617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. McCusker, C.D.; Athippozhy, A.; Diaz-Castillo, C.; Fowlkes, C.; Gardiner, D.M.; Voss, S.R. Positional Plasticity in Regenerating Amybstoma Mexicanum Limbs Is Associated with Cell Proliferation and Pathways of Cellular Differentiation Regeneration and Repair. BMC Dev. Biol. 2015, 15, 45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Mathiassen, S.G.; De Zio, D.; Cecconi, F. Autophagy and the Cell Cycle: A Complex Landscape. Front. Oncol. 2017, 7, 51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Ziegler, D.V.; Huber, K.; Fajas, L. The Intricate Interplay between Cell Cycle Regulators and Autophagy in Cancer. Cancers 2022, 14, 153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Boya, P.; Codogno, P.; Rodriguez-Muela, N. Autophagy in Stem Cells: Repair, Remodelling and Metabolic Reprogramming. Developemnt 2018, 145, dev146506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. García-Prat, L.; Martínez-Vicente, M.; Perdiguero, E.; Ortet, L.; Rodríguez-Ubreva, J.; Rebollo, E.; Ruiz-Bonilla, V.; Gutarra, S.; Ballestar, E.; Serrano, A.L.; et al. Autophagy Maintains Stemness by Preventing Senescence. Nature 2016, 529, 37–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Tang, A.H.; Rando, T.A. Induction of Autophagy Supports the Bioenergetic Demands of Quiescent Muscle Stem Cell Activation. EMBO J. 2014, 33, 2782–2797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Varga, M.; Sass, M.; Papp, D.; Takács-Vellai, K.; Kobolak, J.; Dinnyés, A.; Klionsky, D.J.; Vellai, T. Autophagy Is Required for Zebrafish Caudal Fin Regeneration. Cell Death Differ. 2014, 21, 547–556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  112. Nagy, P.; Sándor, G.O.; Juhász, G. Autophagy Maintains Stem Cells and Intestinal Homeostasis in Drosophila. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 4644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  113. Du, J.; Liu, W.; Song, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Dong, C.; Xiong, S.; Huang, Z.; Wang, T.; Ding, J.; He, Q.; et al. Activating Autophagy Promotes Skin Regeneration Induced by Mechanical Stretch during Tissue Expansion. Burn. Trauma. 2024, 12, tkad057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Jopling, C.; Boue, S.; Belmonte, J.C.I. Dedifferentiation, Transdifferentiation and Reprogramming: Three Routes to Regeneration. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2011, 12, 79–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Jopling, C.; Sleep, E.; Raya, M.; Martí, M.; Raya, A.; Belmonte, J.C.I. Zebrafish Heart Regeneration Occurs by Cardiomyocyte Dedifferentiation and Proliferation. Nature 2010, 464, 606–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Lin, T.Y.; Gerber, T.; Taniguchi-Sugiura, Y.; Murawala, P.; Hermann, S.; Grosser, L.; Shibata, E.; Treutlein, B.; Tanaka, E.M. Fibroblast Dedifferentiation as a Determinant of Successful Regeneration. Dev. Cell 2021, 56, 1541–1551.e6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Gerber, T.; Murawala, P.; Knapp, D.; Masselink, W.; Schuez, M.; Hermann, S.; Gac-Santel, M.; Nowoshilow, S.; Kageyama, J.; Khattak, S.; et al. Single-Cell Analysis Uncovers Convergence of Cell Identities during Axolotl Limb Regeneration. Science 2018, 362, eaaq0681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Chen, Z.L.; Yu, W.M.; Strickland, S. Peripheral Regeneration. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 2007, 30, 209–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Willet, S.G.; Lewis, M.A.; Miao, Z.; Liu, D.; Radyk, M.D.; Cunningham, R.L.; Burclaff, J.; Sibbel, G.; Lo, H.G.; Blanc, V.; et al. Regenerative Proliferation of Differentiated Cells by MTORC 1-dependent Paligenosis. EMBO J. 2018, 37, e98311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Messal, H.A.; Cremona, C.A.; Lan, L.; Behrens, A. Paligenosis: Prepare to regenerate! EMBO J. 2018, 37, e99206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Miao, Z.F.; Lewis, M.A.; Cho, C.J.; Adkins-Threats, M.; Park, D.; Brown, J.W.; Sun, J.X.; Burclaff, J.R.; Kennedy, S.; Lu, J.; et al. A Dedicated Evolutionarily Conserved Molecular Network Licenses Differentiated Cells to Return to the Cell Cycle. Dev. Cell 2020, 55, 178–194.e7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  122. Brown, J.W.; Cho, C.J.; Mills, J.C. Paligenosis: Cellular Remodeling During Tissue Repair. Annu. Rev. Physiol. 2022, 84, 461–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  123. Saera-Vila, A.; Kish, P.E.; Louie, K.W.; Grzegorski, S.J.; Klionsky, D.J.; Kahana, A. Autophagy Regulates Cytoplasmic Remodeling during Cell Reprogramming in a Zebrafish Model of Muscle Regeneration. Autophagy 2016, 12, 1864–1875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  124. Wang, S.; Xia, P.; Ye, B.; Huang, G.; Liu, J.; Fan, Z. Transient Activation of Autophagy via Sox2-Mediated Suppression of MTOR Is an Important Early Step in Reprogramming to Pluripotency. Cell Stem Cell 2013, 13, 617–625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Gomez-Sanchez, J.A.; Carty, L.; Iruarrizaga-Lejarreta, M.; Palomo-Irigoyen, M.; Varela-Rey, M.; Griffith, M.; Hantke, J.; Macias-Camara, N.; Azkargorta, M.; Aurrekoetxea, I.; et al. Schwann Cell Autophagy, Myelinophagy, Initiates Myelin Clearance from Injured Nerves. J. Cell Biol. 2015, 210, 153–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Mirsky, R.; Woodhoo, A.; Parkinson, D.B.; Arthur-Farraj, P.; Bhaskaran, A.; Jessen, K.R. Novel Signals Controlling Embryonic Schwann Cell Development, Myelination and Dedifferentiation. J. Peripher. Nerv. Syst. 2008, 13, 122–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Pennock, R.; Bray, E.; Pryor, P.; James, S.; McKeegan, P.; Sturmey, R.; Genever, P. Human Cell Dedifferentiation in Mesenchymal Condensates through Controlled Autophagy. Sci. Rep. 2015, 5, 13113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Sahu, S.; Sridhar, D.; Abnave, P.; Kosaka, N.; Dattani, A.; Thompson, J.M.; Hill, M.A.; Aboobaker, A. Ongoing Repair of Migration-Coupled Dna Damage Allows Planarian Adult Stem Cells to Reach Wound Sites. eLife 2021, 10, e63779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Kaveh, A.; Bruton, F.A.; Buckley, C.; Oremek, M.E.M.; Tucker, C.S.; Mullins, J.J.; Taylor, J.M.; Rossi, A.G.; Denvir, M.A. Live Imaging of Heart Injury in Larval Zebrafish Reveals a Multi-Stage Model of Neutrophil and Macrophage Migration. Front. Cell Dev. Biol. 2020, 8, 579943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Petrie, T.A.; Strand, N.S.; Yang, C.-T.; Rabinowitz, J.S.; Moon, R.T. Macrophages Modulate Adult Zebrafish Tail Fin Regeneration. Development 2015, 142, 406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Hu, D.J.K.; Yun, J.; Elstrott, J.; Jasper, H. Non-Canonical Wnt Signaling Promotes Directed Migration of Intestinal Stem Cells to Sites of Injury. Nat. Commun. 2021, 12, 7150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  132. Park, S.; Gonzalez, D.G.; Guirao, B.; Boucher, J.D.; Cockburn, K.; Marsh, E.D.; Mesa, K.R.; Brown, S.; Rompolas, P.; Haberman, A.M.; et al. Tissue-Scale Coordination of Cellular Behaviour Promotes Epidermal Wound Repair in Live Mice. Nat. Cell Biol. 2017, 19, 155–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  133. Kenific, C.M.; Wittmann, T.; Debnath, J. Autophagy in Adhesion and Migration. J. Cell Sci. 2016, 129, 3685–3693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Coly, P.M.; Gandolfo, P.; Castel, H.; Morin, F. The Autophagy Machinery: A New Player in Chemotactic Cell Migration. Front. Neurosci. 2017, 11, 78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Kenific, C.M.; Stehbens, S.J.; Goldsmith, J.; Leidal, A.M.; Faure, N.; Ye, J.; Wittmann, T.; Debnath, J. NBR 1 Enables Autophagy-Dependent Focal Adhesion Turnover. J. Cell Biol. 2016, 212, 577–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Zhan, Z.; Xie, X.; Cao, H.; Zhou, X.; Zhang, X.D.; Fan, H.; Liu, Z. Autophagy Facilitates TLR4- and TLR3-Triggered Migration and Invasion of Lung Cancer Cells through the Promotion of TRAF6 Ubiquitination. Autophagy 2014, 10, 257–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. García-Miranda, A.; Montes-Alvarado, J.B.; Sarmiento-Salinas, F.L.; Vallejo-Ruiz, V.; Castañeda-Saucedo, E.; Navarro-Tito, N.; Maycotte, P. Regulation of Mitochondrial Metabolism by Autophagy Supports Leptin-Induced Cell Migration. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 1408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. García-Miranda, A.; Solano-Alcalá, K.A.; Montes-Alvarado, J.B.; Rosas-Cruz, A.; Reyes-Leyva, J.; Navarro-Tito, N.; Maycotte, P.; Castañeda-Saucedo, E. Autophagy Mediates Leptin-Induced Migration and ERK Activation in Breast Cancer Cells. Front. Cell Dev. Biol. 2021, 9, 644851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Galavotti, S.; Bartesaghi, S.; Faccenda, D.; Shaked-Rabi, M.; Sanzone, S.; McEvoy, A.; Dinsdale, D.; Condorelli, F.; Brandner, S.; Campanella, M.; et al. The Autophagy-Associated Factors DRAM1 and P62 Regulate Cell Migration and Invasion in Glioblastoma Stem Cells. Oncogene 2013, 32, 699–712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Chen, X.; Tong, G.; Fan, J.; Shen, Y.; Wang, N.; Gong, W.; Hu, Z.; Zhu, K.; Li, X.; Jin, L.; et al. FGF21 Promotes Migration and Differentiation of Epidermal Cells during Wound Healing via SIRT1-Dependent Autophagy. Br. J. Pharmacol. 2022, 179, 1102–1121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Kadandale, P.; Stender, J.D.; Glass, C.K.; Kiger, A.A. Conserved Role for Autophagy in Rho1-Mediated Cortical Remodeling and Blood Cell Recruitment. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2010, 107, 10502–10507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  142. Zhou, J.; Li, S.; Gao, J.; Hu, Y.; Chen, S.; Luo, X.; Zhang, H.; Luo, Z.; Huang, J. Epothilone B Facilitates Peripheral Nerve Regeneration by Promoting Autophagy and Migration in Schwann Cells. Front. Cell Neurosci. 2020, 14, 143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  143. Gao, D.; Tang, T.; Zhu, J.; Tang, Y.; Sun, H.; Li, S. CXCL12 Has Therapeutic Value in Facial Nerve Injury and Promotes Schwann Cells Autophagy and Migration via PI3K-AKT-MTOR Signal Pathway. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2019, 124, 460–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  144. Yang, J.W.; Zhang, Y.F.; Wan, C.Y.; Sun, Z.Y.; Nie, S.; Jian, S.J.; Zhang, L.; Song, G.T.; Chen, Z. Autophagy in SDF-1α-Mediated DPSC Migration and Pulp Regeneration. Biomaterials 2015, 44, 11–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  145. Agata, K.; Saito, Y.; Nakajima, E. Unifying Principles of Regeneration I: Epimorphosis versus Morphallaxis. Dev. Growth Differ. 2007, 49, 73–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Pellettieri, J.; Fitzgerald, P.; Watanabe, S.; Mancuso, J.; Green, D.R.; Sánchez Alvarado, A. Cell Death and Tissue Remodeling in Planarian Regeneration. Dev. Biol. 2010, 338, 76–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Chera, S.; Ghila, L.; Dobretz, K.; Wenger, Y.; Bauer, C.; Buzgariu, W.; Martinou, J.C.; Galliot, B. Apoptotic Cells Provide an Unexpected Source of Wnt3 Signaling to Drive Hydra Head Regeneration. Dev. Cell 2009, 17, 279–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Guerin, D.J.; Kha, C.X.; Tseng, K.A.S. From Cell Death to Regeneration: Rebuilding After Injury. Front. Cell Dev. Biol. 2021, 9, 109–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Hill, E.M.; Petersen, C.P. Wnt/Notum Spatial Feedback Inhibition Controls Neoblast Differentiation to Regulate Reversible Growth of the Planarian Brain. Development 2015, 142, 4217–4229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Godwin, J.; Kuraitis, D.; Rosenthal, N. Extracellular Matrix Considerations for Scar-Free Repair and Regeneration: Insights from Regenerative Diversity among Vertebrates. Int. J. Biochem. Cell Biol. 2014, 56, 47–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Chen, W.C.W.; Wang, Z.; Missinato, M.A.; Park, D.W.; Long, D.W.; Liu, H.-J.; Zeng, X.; Yates, N.A.; Kim, K.; Wang, Y. Decellularized Zebrafish Cardiac Extracellular Matrix Induces Mammalian Heart Regeneration. Sci. Adv. 2016, 2, e1600844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  152. Cote, L.E.; Simental, E.; Reddien, P.W. Muscle Functions as a Connective Tissue and Source of Extracellular Matrix in Planarians. Nat. Commun. 2019, 10, 1592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  153. Adell, T.; Cebrià, F.; Saló, E. Gradients in Planarian Regeneration and Homeostasis. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol. 2010, 2, a000505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  154. Witchley, J.N.; Mayer, M.; Wagner, D.E.; Owen, J.H.; Reddien, P.W. Muscle Cells Provide Instructions for Planarian Regeneration. Cell Rep. 2013, 4, 633–641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Owlarn, S.; Bartscherer, K. Go Ahead, Grow a Head! A Planarian’s Guide to Anterior Regeneration. Regeneration 2016, 3, 139–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. De Sousa, N.; Rodríguez-Esteban, G.; Rojo-Laguna, J.I.; Saló, E.; Adell, T. Hippo Signaling Controls Cell Cycle and Restricts Cell Plasticity in Planarians. PLoS Biol. 2018, 16, e2002399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Liu, S.Z.; Yao, S.J.; Yang, H.; Liu, S.J.; Wang, Y.J. Autophagy: Regulator of Cell Death. Cell Death Dis. 2023, 14, 648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Sylakowski, K.; Wells, A. ECM-Regulation of Autophagy: The Yin and the Yang of Autophagy during Wound Healing. Matrix Biol. 2021, 100–101, 197–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Kempuraj, D.; Mohan, R.R. Autophagy in Extracellular Matrix and Wound Healing Modulation in the Cornea. Biomedicines 2022, 10, 339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Tang, F.; Christofori, G. The Cross-Talk between the Hippo Signaling Pathway and Autophagy: Implications on Physiology and Cancer. Cell Cycle 2020, 19, 2563–2572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Lorzadeh, S.; Kohan, L.; Ghavami, S.; Azarpira, N. Autophagy and the Wnt Signaling Pathway: A Focus on Wnt/β-Catenin Signaling. Biochim. Biophys. Acta Mol. Cell Res. 2021, 1868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  162. Kang, J.; Dong, Z.; Wang, J.; Chen, G.; Liu, D. Autophagy-Related Djatg8 Is Required for Remodeling in Planarian Dugesia Japonica. Biol. Open 2019, 8, bio045013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  163. González-Estévez, C.; Felix, D.A.; Aboobaker, A.A.; Saló, E. Gtdap-1 Promotes Autophagy and Is Required for Planarian Remodeling during Regeneration and Starvation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2007, 104, 13373–13378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. González-Estévez, C.; Felix, D.A.; Aboobaker, A.A.; Saló, E. Gtdap-1 and the Role of Autophagy During Planarian Regeneration and Starvation. Autophagy 2007, 3, 640–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Jin, B.; Ren, J.; Chen, J.; Dong, Z.; Chen, G.; Liu, D. Autophagy-Related DjAtg1-1 Plays Critical Role in Planarian Regeneration by Regulating Proliferation and Cell Death. Cell Tissue Res. 2022, 388, 273–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Chera, S.; de Rosa, R.; Miljlovic-Licina, M.; Dobretz, K.; Ghila, L.; Kaloulis, K.; Galliot, B. Silencing of the Hydra Serine Protease Inhibitor Kazal1 Gene Mimics the Human SPINK1 Pacnreatic Phenotype. J. Cell Sci. 2006, 119, 846–857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Ogrodnik, M.; Carlos Acosta, J.; Adams, P.D.; d’Adda di Fagagna, F.; Baker, D.J.; Bishop, C.L.; Chandra, T.; Collado, M.; Gil, J.; Gorgoulis, V.; et al. Guidelines for Minimal Information on Cellular Senescence Experimentation in Vivo. Cell 2024, 187, 4150–4175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  168. De Magalhães, J.P. Cellular Senescence in Normal Physiology. Science 2024, 384, 1300–1301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. Salinas-Saavedra, M.; Febrimarsa; Krasovec, G.; Horkan, H.R.; Baxevanis, A.D.; Frank, U. Senescence-Induced Cellular Reprogramming Drives Cnidarian Whole-Body Regeneration. Cell Rep. 2023, 42, 112687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Da Silva-Álvarez, S.; Guerra-Varela, J.; Sobrido-Cameán, D.; Quelle, A.; Barreiro-Iglesias, A.; Sánchez, L.; Collado, M. Cell Senescence Contributes to Tissue Regeneration in Zebrafish. Aging Cell 2020, 19, e13052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Yun, M.H.; Davaapil, H.; Brockes, J.P. Recurrent Turnover of Senescent Cells during Regeneration of a Complex Structure. eLife 2015, 4, e05505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  172. Yu, Q.; Walters, H.E.; Pasquini, G.; Pal Singh, S.; Lachnit, M.; Oliveira, C.R.; León-Periñán, D.; Petzold, A.; Kesavan, P.; Subiran Adrados, C.; et al. Cellular Senescence Promotes Progenitor Cell Expansion during Axolotl Limb Regeneration. Dev. Cell 2023, 58, 2416–2427.e7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  173. Walters, H.E.; Troyanovskiy, K.E.; Graf, A.M.; Yun, M.H. Senescent Cells Enhance Newt Limb Regeneration by Promoting Muscle Dedifferentiation. Aging Cell 2023, 22, e13826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  174. Demaria, M.; Ohtani, N.; Youssef, S.A.; Rodier, F.; Toussaint, W.; Mitchell, J.R.; Laberge, R.M.; Vijg, J.; VanSteeg, H.; Dollé, M.E.T.; et al. An Essential Role for Senescent Cells in Optimal Wound Healing through Secretion of PDGF-AA. Dev. Cell 2014, 31, 722–733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  175. Ring, N.A.R.; Dworak, H.; Bachmann, B.; Schädl, B.; Valdivieso, K.; Rozmaric, T.; Heimel, P.; Fischer, I.; Klinaki, E.; Gutasi, A.; et al. The P-RpS6-Zone Delineates Wounding Responses and the Healing Process. Dev. Cell 2023, 58, 981–992.e6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  176. Kang, C.; Elledge, S.J. How Autophagy Both Activates and Inhibits Cellular Senescence. Autophagy 2016, 12, 898–899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  177. Kwon, Y.; Kim, J.W.; Jeoung, J.A.; Kim, M.S.; Kang, C. Autophagy Is Pro-Senescence When Seen in Close-up, but Anti-Senescence in Long-Shot. Mol. Cells 2017, 40, 607–612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  178. Kang, C.; Xu, Q.; Martin, T.D.; Li, M.Z.; Demaria, M.; Aron, L.; Lu, T.; Yankner, B.A.; Campisi, J.; Elledge, S.J. The DNA Damage Response Induces Inflammation and Senescence by Inhibiting Autophagy of GATA4. Science 2015, 349, aaa5612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  179. Dou, Z.; Xu, C.; Donahue, G.; Shimi, T.; Pan, J.A.; Zhu, J.; Ivanov, A.; Capell, B.C.; Drake, A.M.; Shah, P.P.; et al. Autophagy Mediates Degradation of Nuclear Lamina. Nature 2015, 527, 105–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  180. Lenain, C.; Gusyatiner, O.; Douma, S.; van den Broek, B.; Peeper, D.S. Autophagy-Mediated Degradation of Nuclear Envelope Proteins during Oncogene-Induced Senescence. Carcinogenesis 2015, 36, 1263–1274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  181. Adams, P.D.; Ivanov, A.; Pawlikowski, J.; Manoharan, I.; van Tuyn, J.; Nelson, D.M.; Singh Rai, T.; Shah, P.P.; Hewitt, G.; Korolchuk, V.I.; et al. Lysosome-Mediated Processing of Chromatin in Senescence. J. Cell Biol. 2013, 202, 129–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  182. Narita, M.; Young, A.R.J.; Arakawa, S.; Samarajiwa, S.A.; Nakashima, T.; Yoshida, S.; Hong, S.; Berry, L.S.; Reichelt, S.; Ferreira, M.; et al. Spatial Coupling of MTOR and Autophagy Augments Secretory Phenotypes. Science 2011, 332, 966–970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  183. Toshima, T.; Shirabe, K.; Fukuhara, T.; Ikegami, T.; Yoshizumi, T.; Soejima, Y.; Ikeda, T.; Okano, S.; Maehara, Y. Suppression of Autophagy during Liver Regeneration Impairs Energy Charge and Hepatocyte Senescence in Mice. Hepatology 2014, 60, 290–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  184. Wynn, T.A. Cellular and Molecular Mechanisms of Fibrosis. J. Pathol. 2008, 214, 199–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  185. Turano, P.S.; Herbig, U. Cellular Senescence, P21, and the Path to Fibrosis. EMBO J. 2024, 43, 5332–5334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  186. Hernandez-Gonzalez, F.; Prats, N.; Ramponi, V.; Alberto López-Domínguez, J.; Meyer, K.; Aguilera, M.; Muñoz Martín, M.I.; Martínez, D.; Agusti, A.; Faner, R.; et al. Human Senescent Fibroblasts Trigger Progressive Lung Fibrosis in Mice. Aging 2023, 15, 6641–6657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  187. Wiley, C.D.; Brumwell, A.N.; Davis, S.S.; Jackson, J.R.; Valdovinos, A.; Calhoun, C.; Alimirah, F.; Castellanos, C.A.; Ruan, R.; Wei, Y.; et al. Secretion of Leukotrienes by Senescent Lung Fibroblasts Promotes Pulmonary Fibrosis. JCI Insight 2019, 4, e130056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  188. Schafer, M.J.; White, T.A.; Iijima, K.; Haak, A.J.; Ligresti, G.; Atkinson, E.J.; Oberg, A.L.; Birch, J.; Salmonowicz, H.; Zhu, Y.; et al. Cellular Senescence Mediates Fibrotic Pulmonary Disease. Nat. Commun. 2017, 8, 14532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  189. Maus, M.; López-Polo, V.; Mateo, L.; Lafarga, M.; Aguilera, M.; De Lama, E.; Meyer, K.; Sola, A.; Lopez-Martinez, C.; López-Alonso, I.; et al. Iron Accumulation Drives Fibrosis, Senescence and the Senescence-Associated Secretory Phenotype. Nat. Metab. 2023, 5, 2111–2130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  190. Hernández-Gea, V.; Friedman, S.L. Autophagy Fuels Tissue Fibrogenesis. Autophagy 2012, 8, 849–850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  191. Principe, D.D.; Lista, P.; Malorni, W.; Giammarioli, A.M. Fibroblast Autophagy in Fibrotic Disorders. J. Pathol. 2013, 229, 208–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  192. Hernndezgea, V.; Ghiassinejad, Z.; Rozenfeld, R.; Gordon, R.; Fiel, M.I.; Yue, Z.; Czaja, M.J.; Friedman, S.L. Autophagy Releases Lipid That Promotes Fibrogenesis by Activated Hepatic Stellate Cells in Mice and in Human Tissues. Gastroenterology 2012, 142, 938–946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  193. Bernard, M.; Dieudé, M.; Yang, B.; Hamelin, K.; Underwood, K.; Hébert, M.J. Autophagy Fosters Myofibroblast Differentiation through MTORC2 Activation and Downstream Upregulation of CTGF. Autophagy 2014, 10, 2193–2207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  194. Bernard, M.; Yang, B.; Migneault, F.; Turgeon, J.; Dieudé, M.; Olivier, M.A.; Cardin, G.B.; El-Diwany, M.; Underwood, K.; Rodier, F.; et al. Autophagy Drives Fibroblast Senescence through MTORC2 Regulation. Autophagy 2020, 16, 2004–2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  195. Livingston, M.J.; Shu, S.; Fan, Y.; Li, Z.; Jiao, Q.; Yin, X.M.; Venkatachalam, M.A.; Dong, Z. Tubular Cells Produce FGF2 via Autophagy after Acute Kidney Injury Leading to Fibroblast Activation and Renal Fibrosis. Autophagy 2023, 19, 256–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  196. Canaud, G.; Brooks, C.R.; Kishi, S.; Taguchi, K.; Nishimura, K.; Magassa, S.; Scott, A.; Hsiao, L.-L.; Ichimura, T.; Terzi, F.; et al. Cyclin G1 and TASCC Regulate Kidney Epithelial Cell G2-M Arrest and Fibrotic Maladaptive Repair. Sci. Transl. Med. 2019, 11, eaav4754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  197. Della Fazia, M.A.; Servillo, G. Foie Gras and Liver Regeneration: A Fat Dilemma. Cell Stress. 2018, 2, 162–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  198. Yue, F.; Oprescu, S.N.; Qiu, J.; Gu, L.; Zhang, L.; Chen, J.; Narayanan, N.; Deng, M.; Kuang, S. Lipid Droplet Dynamics Regulate Adult Muscle Stem Cell Fate. Cell Rep. 2022, 38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  199. Morales, P.E.; Bucarey, J.L.; Espinosa, A. Muscle Lipid Metabolism: Role of Lipid Droplets and Perilipins. J. Diabetes Res. 2017, 2017, 789395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  200. Wong, L.L.; Bruxvoort, C.G.; Cejda, N.I.; Delaney, M.R.; Otero, J.R.; Forsthoefel, D.J. Intestine-Enriched Apolipoprotein b Orthologs Are Required for Stem Cell Progeny Differentiation and Regeneration in Planarians. Nat. Commun. 2022, 13, 3803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  201. Deb, S.; Felix, D.A.; Koch, P.; Deb, M.K.; Szafranski, K.; Buder, K.; Sannai, M.; Groth, M.; Kirkpatrick, J.; Pietsch, S.; et al. Tnfaip2/Exoc3 -driven Lipid Metabolism Is Essential for Stem Cell Differentiation and Organ Homeostasis. EMBO Rep. 2021, 22, e49328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  202. Singh, R.; Kaushik, S.; Wang, Y.; Xiang, Y.; Novak, I.; Komatsu, M.; Tanaka, K.; Cuervo, A.M.; Czaja, M.J. Autophagy Regulates Lipid Metabolism. Nature 2009, 458, 1131–1135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  203. Alexandrino, H.; Varela, A.T.; Teodoro, J.S.; Martins, M.A.; Rolo, A.P.; Tralhão, J.G.; Palmeira, C.M.; Castro e Sousa, F. Mitochondrial Bioenergetics and Posthepatectomy Liver Dysfunction. Eur. J. Clin. Investig. 2016, 46, 627–635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  204. Römermann, D.; Ansari, N.; Schultz-Moreira, A.R.; Michael, A.; Marhenke, S.; Hardtke-Wolenski, M.; Longerich, T.; Manns, M.P.; Wedemeyer, H.; Vogel, A.; et al. Absence of Atg7 in the Liver Disturbed Hepatic Regeneration after Liver Injury. Liver Int. 2020, 40, 1225–1238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  205. Haidar, M.; Loix, M.; Vanherle, S.; Dierckx, T.; Vangansewinkel, T.; Gervois, P.; Wolfs, E.; Lambrichts, I.; Bogie, J.F.J.; Hendriks, J.J.A. Targeting Lipophagy in Macrophages Improves Repair in Multiple Sclerosis. Autophagy 2022, 18, 2697–2710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  206. Kim, K.H.; Oprescu, S.N.; Snyder, M.M.; Kim, A.; Jia, Z.; Yue, F.; Kuang, S. PRMT5 Mediates FoxO1 Methylation and Subcellular Localization to Regulate Lipophagy in Myogenic Progenitors. Cell Rep. 2023, 42, 113329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  207. Balnis, J.; Jackson, E.L.; Drake, L.A.; Singer, D.V.; Bossardi Ramos, R.; Singer, H.A.; Jaitovich, A. Rapamycin Improves Satellite Cells Autophagy and Muscle Regeneration during Hypercapnia. JCI Insight 2024, 10, e182842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  208. Huang, H.C.; Chen, L.; Zhang, H.X.; Li, S.F.; Liu, P.; Zhao, T.Y.; Li, C.X. xiang Autophagy Promotes Peripheral Nerve Regeneration and Motor Recovery Following Sciatic Nerve Crush Injury in Rats. J. Mol. Neurosci. 2016, 58, 416–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  209. Pallauf, K.; Rimbach, G. Autophagy, Polyphenols and Healthy Ageing. Ageing Res. Rev. 2013, 12, 237–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  210. Tian, Y.; Song, W.; Li, D.; Cai, L.; Zhao, Y. Resveratrol as a Natural Regulator of Autophagy for Prevention and Treatment of Cancer. Onco Targets Ther. 2019, 12, 8601–8609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  211. de Moraes, A.C.N.; de Andrade, C.B.V.; Ramos, I.P.R.; Dias, M.L.; Batista, C.M.P.; Pimentel, C.F.; de Carvalho, J.J.; dos Santos Goldenberg, R.C. Resveratrol promotes liver regeneration in drug-induced liver disease in mice. Food Res. Int. 2021, 142, 110185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  212. Xiang, Z.; Zhang, S.; Yao, X.; Xu, L.; Hu, J.; Yin, C.; Chen, J.; Xu, H. Resveratrol Promotes Axonal Regeneration after Spinal Cord Injury through Activating Wnt/β-Catenin Signaling Pathway. Aging 2021, 13, 23603–23619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  213. Ding, Z.; Cao, J.; Shen, Y.; Zou, Y.; Yang, X.; Zhou, W.; Guo, Q.; Huang, C. Resveratrol Promotes Nerve Regeneration via Activation of P300 Acetyltransferase-Mediated VEGF Signaling in a Rat Model of Sciatic Nerve Crush Injury. Front. Neurosci. 2018, 12, 341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  214. Wang, Y.J.; Zhao, P.; Sui, B.D.; Liu, N.; Hu, C.H.; Chen, J.; Zheng, C.X.; Liu, A.Q.; Xuan, K.; Pan, Y.P.; et al. Resveratrol Enhances the Functionality and Improves the Regeneration of Mesenchymal Stem Cell Aggregates. Exp. Mol. Med. 2018, 50, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  215. Lu, G.; Wu, Z.; Shang, J.; Xie, Z.; Zhang, C.; Chen, C. The Effects of Metformin on Autophagy. Biomed. Pharmacother. 2021, 137, 111286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  216. Xie, F.; Xu, S.; Lu, Y.; Wong, K.F.; Sun, L.; Hasan, K.M.M.; Ma, A.C.H.; Tse, G.; Manno, S.H.C.; Tian, L.; et al. Metformin Accelerates Zebrafish Heart Regeneration by Inducing Autophagy. NPJ Regen. Med. 2021, 6, 62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  217. Ma, J.; Liu, J.; Chen, Y.; Yu, H.; Xiang, L. Metformin Promotes Axonal Regeneration and Functional Recovery in Diabetic Rat Model of Sciatic Nerve Transection Injury. NeuroSci 2022, 3, 366–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  218. Wang, H.; Zheng, Z.; Han, W.; Yuan, Y.; Li, Y.; Zhou, K.; Wang, Q.; Xie, L.; Xu, K.; Zhang, H.; et al. Metformin Promotes Axon Regeneration after Spinal Cord Injury through Inhibiting Oxidative Stress and Stabilizing Microtubule. Oxid. Med. Cell Longev. 2020, 2020, 9741369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  219. Suknovic, N.; Tomczyk, S.; Colevret, D.; Perruchoud, C.; Galliot, B. The ULK1 Kinase, a Necessary Component of the pro-Regenerative and Anti-Aging Machinery in Hydra. Mech. Ageing Dev. 2021, 194, 111414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  220. Kang, J.; Chen, J.; Dong, Z.; Chen, G.; Liu, D. The Negative Effect of the PI3K Inhibitor 3-Methyladenine on Planarian Regeneration via the Autophagy Signalling Pathway. Ecotoxicology 2021, 30, 1941–1948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  221. Chen, F.; Pu, S.; Tian, L.; Zhang, H.; Zhou, H.; Yan, Y.; Hu, X.; Wu, Q.; Chen, X.; Cheng, S.H.; et al. Radix Rehmanniae Praeparata Promoted Zebrafish Fin Regeneration through Aryl Hydrocarbon Receptor-Dependent Autophagy. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2024, 331, 118272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  222. Ko, S.H.; Apple, E.C.; Liu, Z.; Chen, L. Age-Dependent Autophagy Induction after Injury Promotes Axon Regeneration by Limiting NOTCH. Autophagy 2020, 16, 2052–2068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  223. Mijaljica, D.; Spada, F.; Klionsky, D.J.; Harrison, I.P. Autophagy Is the Key to Making Chronic Wounds Acute in Skin Wound Healing. Autophagy 2023, 19, 2578–2584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  224. Ren, H.; Zhao, F.; Zhang, Q.; Huang, X.; Wang, Z. Autophagy and Skin Wound Healing. Burn. Trauma. 2022, 10, tkac003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  225. Lu, H.; Jia, C.; Wu, D.; Jin, H.; Lin, Z.; Pan, J.; Li, X.; Wang, W. Fibroblast Growth Factor 21 (FGF21) Alleviates Senescence, Apoptosis, and Extracellular Matrix Degradation in Osteoarthritis via the SIRT1-MTOR Signaling Pathway. Cell Death Dis. 2021, 12, 865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  226. Yan, Y.; Ran, X.; Zhou, Z.; Gu, Y.; Wang, R.; Qiu, C.; Sun, Y.; Wang, J.; Xiao, J.; Lu, Y.; et al. FGF21 Inhibits Ferroptosis Caused by Mitochondrial Damage to Promote the Repair of Peripheral Nerve Injury. Front. Pharmacol. 2024, 15, 1358646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  227. An, Y.; Liu, W.J.; Xue, P.; Ma, Y.; Zhang, L.Q.; Zhu, B.; Qi, M.; Li, L.Y.; Zhang, Y.J.; Wang, Q.T.; et al. Autophagy Promotes MSC-Mediated Vascularization in Cutaneous Wound Healing via Regulation of VEGF Secretion Article. Cell Death Dis. 2018, 9, 58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  228. Xiao, M.; Li, L.; Hu, Q.; Ma, L.; Liu, L.; Chu, W.; Zhang, H. Rapamycin Reduces Burn Wound Progression by Enhancing Autophagy in Deep Second-Degree Burn in Rats. Wound Repair. Regen. 2013, 21, 852–859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  229. Zhao, P.; Sui, B.D.; Liu, N.; Lv, Y.J.; Zheng, C.X.; Lu, Y.B.; Huang, W.T.; Zhou, C.H.; Chen, J.; Pang, D.L.; et al. Anti-Aging Pharmacology in Cutaneous Wound Healing: Effects of Metformin, Resveratrol, and Rapamycin by Local Application. Aging Cell 2017, 16, 1083–1093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  230. Leis, K.; Pisanko, K.; Jundziłł, A.; Mazur, E.; Mȩcińska-Jundziłł, K.; Witmanowski, H. Resveratrol as a Factor Preventing Skin Aging and Affecting Its Regeneration. Postep. Dermatol. Alergol. 2022, 39, 439–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  231. Liu, Y.; Xiong, W.; Wang, C.W.; Shi, J.P.; Shi, Z.Q.; Zhou, J. Resveratrol promotes skin wound healing by regulating the MiR-212/CASP8 Axis. Lab. Investig. 2021, 101, 1363–1370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  232. Hecker, A.; Schellnegger, M.; Hofmann, E.; Luze, H.; Nischwitz, S.P.; Kamolz, L.P.; Kotzbeck, P. The Impact of Resveratrol on Skin Wound Healing, Scarring, and Aging. Int. Wound J. 2022, 19, 9–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  233. Tombulturk, F.K.; Soydas, T.; Kanigur-Sultuybek, G. Topical Metformin Accelerates Wound Healing by Promoting Collagen Synthesis and Inhibiting Apoptosis in a Diabetic Wound Model. Int. Wound J. 2024, 21, e14345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  234. Xiong, S.; Liu, W.; Song, Y.; Du, J.; Wang, T.; Zhang, Y.; Huang, Z.; He, Q.; Dong, C.; Yu, Z.; et al. Metformin Promotes Mechanical Stretch-Induced Skin Regeneration by Improving the Proliferative Activity of Skin-Derived Stem Cells. Front. Med. 2022, 9, 813917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  235. Sarkar, S.; Davies, J.E.; Huang, Z.; Tunnacliffe, A.; Rubinsztein, D.C. Trehalose, a Novel MTOR-Independent Autophagy Enhancer, Accelerates the Clearance of Mutant Huntingtin and α-Synuclein. J. Biol. Chem. 2007, 282, 5641–5652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  236. Palmieri, M.; Pal, R.; Nelvagal, H.R.; Lotfi, P.; Stinnett, G.R.; Seymour, M.L.; Chaudhury, A.; Bajaj, L.; Bondar, V.V.; Bremner, L.; et al. MTORC1-Independent TFEB Activation via Akt Inhibition Promotes Cellular Clearance in Neurodegenerative Storage Diseases. Nat. Commun. 2017, 8, 14338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  237. Mardones, P.; Rubinsztein, D.C.; Hetz, C. Mystery Solved: Trehalose Kickstarts Autophagy by Blocking Glucose Transport. Sci. Signal 2016, 9, fs2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  238. DeBosch, B.J.; Heitmeier, M.R.; Mayer, A.L.; Higgins, C.B.; Crowley, J.R.; Kraft, T.E.; Chi, M.; Newberry, E.P.; Chen, Z.; Finck, B.N.; et al. Trehalose Inhibits Solute Carrier 2A (SLC2A) Proteins to Induce Autophagy and Prevent Hepatic Steatosis. Sci. Signal 2016, 9, ra21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  239. Mayer, A.L.; Higgins, C.B.; Heitmeier, M.R.; Kraft, T.E.; Qian, X.; Crowley, J.R.; Hyrc, K.L.; Beatty, W.L.; Yarasheski, K.E.; Hruz, P.W.; et al. SLC2A8 (GLUT8) Is a Mammalian Trehalose Transporter Required for Trehalose-Induced Autophagy. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 38586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  240. Muto, J.; Fukuda, S.; Watanabe, K.; Dai, X.; Tsuda, T.; Kiyoi, T.; Kameda, K.; Kawakami, R.; Mori, H.; Shiraishi, K.; et al. Highly Concentrated Trehalose Induces Prohealing Senescence-like State in Fibroblasts via CDKN1A/P21. Commun. Biol. 2023, 6, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  241. Jin, J.; Zhu, K.; Tang, S.; Xiang, Y.; Mao, M.; Hong, X.; Chen, A.; Zhang, X.; Lu, H.; Chen, Z.; et al. Trehalose Promotes Functional Recovery of Keratinocytes under Oxidative Stress and Wound Healing via ATG5/ATG7. Burns 2023, 49, 1382–1391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  242. Tian, C.; Feng, Y.; Chen, T.; Zhang, Z.; He, X.; Jiang, L.; Liu, M. EGCG Restores Keratinocyte Autophagy to Promote Diabetic Wound Healing through the AMPK/ULK1 Pathway. Front. Biosci. Landmark 2023, 28, 324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  243. Xie, Y.; Yu, L.; Cheng, Z.; Peng, Y.; Cao, Z.; Chen, B.; Duan, Y.; Wang, Y. SHED-Derived Exosomes Promote LPS-Induced Wound Healing with Less Itching by Stimulating Macrophage Autophagy. J. Nanobiotechnology 2022, 20, 239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  244. Li, K.C.; Wang, C.H.; Zou, J.J.; Qu, C.; Wang, X.L.; Tian, X.S.; Liu, H.W.; Cui, T. Loss of Atg7 in Endothelial Cells Enhanced Cutaneous Wound Healing in a Mouse Model. J. Surg. Res. 2020, 249, 145–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  245. Wang, F.; Zhang, C.; Dai, L.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, Y.; Hao, Y.; Ji, S.; Xu, Z.; Han, N.; Chen, H.; et al. Bafilomycin A1 Accelerates Chronic Refractory Wound Healing in Db/Db Mice. Biomed. Res. Int. 2020, 2020, 6265701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  246. Guo, Y.; Lin, C.; Xu, P.; Wu, S.; Fu, X.; Xia, W.; Yao, M. AGEs Induced Autophagy Impairs Cutaneous Wound Healing via Stimulating Macrophage Polarization to M1 in Diabetes. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 36416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  247. Weinreich, J.; Löb, S.; Löffler, M.; Königsrainer, I.; Zieker, D.; Königsrainer, A.; Coerper, S.; Beckert, S. Rapamycin-Induced Impaired Wound Healing Is Associated with Compromised Tissue Lactate Accumulation and Extracellular Matrix Remodeling. Eur. Surg. Res. 2011, 47, 39–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  248. Feldmeyer, L.; Hofbauer, G.F.L.; Böni, T.; French, L.E.; Hafner, J. Mammalian Target of Rapamycin (MTOR) Inhibitors Slow Skin Carcinogenesis, but Impair Wound Healing. Br. J. Dermatol. 2012, 166, 422–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  249. Liu, T.; Zhang, J.; Li, K.; Deng, L.; Wang, H. Combination of an Autophagy Inducer and an Autophagy Inhibitor: A Smarter Strategy Emerging in Cancer Therapy. Front. Pharmacol. 2020, 11, 408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Overview of Autophagy Pathways. Autophagy utilizes distinct pathways to degrade intracellular components, including damaged proteins, organelles, and pathogens, ensuring cellular homeostasis. (a) Macroautophagy involves the sequestration of cytoplasmic material within a double-membrane vesicle known as the autophagosome. The autophagosome subsequently fuses with the lysosome, where lysosomal enzymes degrade its contents. (b) Chaperone-mediated autophagy (CMA) selectively targets individual proteins containing the KFERQ-like motif. These proteins are recognized by the chaperone Hsc70, transported to the lysosomal membrane, and translocated into the lysosomal lumen through the receptor LAMP2A for degradation. (c) Microautophagy involves the direct uptake of cargo by lysosomes or late endosomes through membrane invagination or protrusion. Once internalized, the autophagic cargo is delivered to the lysosomal lumen, where it undergoes enzymatic degradation. Created in BioRender. Gonzalez Estevez, C. (2025) https://BioRender.com/a77a953.
Figure 1. Overview of Autophagy Pathways. Autophagy utilizes distinct pathways to degrade intracellular components, including damaged proteins, organelles, and pathogens, ensuring cellular homeostasis. (a) Macroautophagy involves the sequestration of cytoplasmic material within a double-membrane vesicle known as the autophagosome. The autophagosome subsequently fuses with the lysosome, where lysosomal enzymes degrade its contents. (b) Chaperone-mediated autophagy (CMA) selectively targets individual proteins containing the KFERQ-like motif. These proteins are recognized by the chaperone Hsc70, transported to the lysosomal membrane, and translocated into the lysosomal lumen through the receptor LAMP2A for degradation. (c) Microautophagy involves the direct uptake of cargo by lysosomes or late endosomes through membrane invagination or protrusion. Once internalized, the autophagic cargo is delivered to the lysosomal lumen, where it undergoes enzymatic degradation. Created in BioRender. Gonzalez Estevez, C. (2025) https://BioRender.com/a77a953.
Cells 14 00282 g001
Figure 2. Key Molecular Steps in the Autophagy Pathway. Autophagy is initiated in response to various stimuli, such as nutrient deprivation, misfolded proteins, reactive oxygen species (ROS), or infections. These signals activate the ULK1 complex, which triggers the formation of the isolation membrane (phagophore) in the cytosol. As the phagophore elongates, cytosolic cargo—including misfolded proteins, damaged organelles, and pathogens—is sequestered through the coordinated action of ATG proteins, which function as a ubiquitin-like conjugation system. Upon elongation and closure, the phagophore matures into a double-membrane vesicle known as the autophagosome. The autophagosome then fuses with the lysosome to form the autolysosome, where lysosomal hydrolytic enzymes degrade the cargo and the inner autophagosomal membrane, facilitating recycling of the breakdown products. Created in BioRender. Gonzalez Estevez, C. (2025) https://BioRender.com/d35c194.
Figure 2. Key Molecular Steps in the Autophagy Pathway. Autophagy is initiated in response to various stimuli, such as nutrient deprivation, misfolded proteins, reactive oxygen species (ROS), or infections. These signals activate the ULK1 complex, which triggers the formation of the isolation membrane (phagophore) in the cytosol. As the phagophore elongates, cytosolic cargo—including misfolded proteins, damaged organelles, and pathogens—is sequestered through the coordinated action of ATG proteins, which function as a ubiquitin-like conjugation system. Upon elongation and closure, the phagophore matures into a double-membrane vesicle known as the autophagosome. The autophagosome then fuses with the lysosome to form the autolysosome, where lysosomal hydrolytic enzymes degrade the cargo and the inner autophagosomal membrane, facilitating recycling of the breakdown products. Created in BioRender. Gonzalez Estevez, C. (2025) https://BioRender.com/d35c194.
Cells 14 00282 g002
Figure 3. Regeneration. Regeneration is a biological process in which organisms restore lost tissues, structures, or even entire bodies. Certain species, such as planarians and Hydra, exhibit whole-body regeneration, where they can regenerate an entire organism from a small body fragment. Structural regeneration occurs after limb or fin resection in axolotl and zebrafish, respectively. Some organs, such as our skin after superficial damage (deep wounds can only be repaired) and zebrafish heart after cryoinjury or transection, possess notable regenerative capacities, allowing them to restore their structure and function following injury. Additionally, specific cells, such as neurons, can regenerate damaged components, like axons, through a process known as axonal regeneration. Created in BioRender. Gonzalez Estevez, C. (2025) https://BioRender.com/n86y859.
Figure 3. Regeneration. Regeneration is a biological process in which organisms restore lost tissues, structures, or even entire bodies. Certain species, such as planarians and Hydra, exhibit whole-body regeneration, where they can regenerate an entire organism from a small body fragment. Structural regeneration occurs after limb or fin resection in axolotl and zebrafish, respectively. Some organs, such as our skin after superficial damage (deep wounds can only be repaired) and zebrafish heart after cryoinjury or transection, possess notable regenerative capacities, allowing them to restore their structure and function following injury. Additionally, specific cells, such as neurons, can regenerate damaged components, like axons, through a process known as axonal regeneration. Created in BioRender. Gonzalez Estevez, C. (2025) https://BioRender.com/n86y859.
Cells 14 00282 g003
Figure 4. Autophagy: a Potential Player in Regeneration. In this model, autophagy serves as a central mechanism driving tissue regeneration and repair across diverse regenerative species. It orchestrates multiple processes critical to regeneration, including injury sensing and damage response, rapid immune activation, and clearance of invading pathogens. Autophagy further promotes cellular proliferation, migration, and cell cycle re-entry necessary for tissue repair. Additionally, it facilitates tissue remodeling to ensure correct proportions and size during regeneration. Importantly, autophagy also regulates cellular senescence, a key biological process in successful tissue regeneration. Created in BioRender. Gonzalez Estevez, C. (2025) https://BioRender.com/n98d270 and edited with Adobe Illustrator.
Figure 4. Autophagy: a Potential Player in Regeneration. In this model, autophagy serves as a central mechanism driving tissue regeneration and repair across diverse regenerative species. It orchestrates multiple processes critical to regeneration, including injury sensing and damage response, rapid immune activation, and clearance of invading pathogens. Autophagy further promotes cellular proliferation, migration, and cell cycle re-entry necessary for tissue repair. Additionally, it facilitates tissue remodeling to ensure correct proportions and size during regeneration. Importantly, autophagy also regulates cellular senescence, a key biological process in successful tissue regeneration. Created in BioRender. Gonzalez Estevez, C. (2025) https://BioRender.com/n98d270 and edited with Adobe Illustrator.
Cells 14 00282 g004
Figure 5. Pharmacological Modulation of Autophagy Enhances Tissue Regeneration. Pharmacological targeting of the autophagy pathway represents a promising therapeutic strategy for promoting tissue repair and regeneration due to the critical role of autophagy in regulating various components of the regenerative process. Several well-established autophagy inducers, including rapamycin, resveratrol, metformin, and trehalose, have demonstrated significant efficacy in enhancing muscle regeneration, accelerating wound healing, and promoting axonal and cardiac tissue repair. Created in BioRender. Gonzalez Estevez, C. (2025) https://BioRender.com/y97n890 and edited with Adobe Illustrator.
Figure 5. Pharmacological Modulation of Autophagy Enhances Tissue Regeneration. Pharmacological targeting of the autophagy pathway represents a promising therapeutic strategy for promoting tissue repair and regeneration due to the critical role of autophagy in regulating various components of the regenerative process. Several well-established autophagy inducers, including rapamycin, resveratrol, metformin, and trehalose, have demonstrated significant efficacy in enhancing muscle regeneration, accelerating wound healing, and promoting axonal and cardiac tissue repair. Created in BioRender. Gonzalez Estevez, C. (2025) https://BioRender.com/y97n890 and edited with Adobe Illustrator.
Cells 14 00282 g005
Table 1. The table outlines the primary biological processes involved in regeneration and repair, along with their associated consequences and the key molecules that play a role. It is important to note that not all processes occur in every tissue and/or organism, and the sequence of events can vary depending on the specific regenerative context. Additionally, there may be some overlap between processes. The referenced sources provide excellent reviews covering a variety of regeneration models.
Table 1. The table outlines the primary biological processes involved in regeneration and repair, along with their associated consequences and the key molecules that play a role. It is important to note that not all processes occur in every tissue and/or organism, and the sequence of events can vary depending on the specific regenerative context. Additionally, there may be some overlap between processes. The referenced sources provide excellent reviews covering a variety of regeneration models.
Biological Process Consequences of the Biological ProcessesKey Molecules and Mediators
Sensing the injury [11,12,13].Loss of tissue integrity, infection, DNA damage, cell death, senescence.DAMPs (ROS, ATP, PUFAs, Egr), Ca2+, Wnt pathway, p38 signaling, MAPK/ERK pathway, regeneration-specific genetic programs through TREEs and re-activation of embryonic genetic programs, metabolic re-wiring.
Immune response [14]. Macrophage activation, cell migration, inflammation, cell death, debris clearance, defense from pathogens, induction of proliferation/differentiation, fibrosis, and scar formation.PAMPs, Toll-like receptor signaling, NOD-like receptor signaling, signaling from macrophages.
Peripheral barrier restoration [15].Re-epithelialization and extracellular matrix (ECM) remodeling for wound closure.Cytokines and growth factors, Ca2+, matrix metalloproteinase (MMPs), integrins.
Cell activation (may involve migration), cell cycle re-entry, and proliferation [16]. Formation of a blastema or wound repair.Wnt, BMP, Hippo, Junk, and IGF pathways, mTOR, Akt, SMG-1, growth factors, signaling from apoptotic and senescent cells.
Differentiation and morphogenesis [17,18,19]. Cell fate specification, pattern, and shape formation, and integration with existing tissue.Wnt and BMP pathways, metabolic re-wiring.
Remodeling and scaling [20,21,22,23]. Growth with or without morphogenesis.mTOR, JNK, and Hippo pathways, Wnt signaling, STRIPAK.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Moreno-Blas, D.; Adell, T.; González-Estévez, C. Autophagy in Tissue Repair and Regeneration. Cells 2025, 14, 282. https://doi.org/10.3390/cells14040282

AMA Style

Moreno-Blas D, Adell T, González-Estévez C. Autophagy in Tissue Repair and Regeneration. Cells. 2025; 14(4):282. https://doi.org/10.3390/cells14040282

Chicago/Turabian Style

Moreno-Blas, Daniel, Teresa Adell, and Cristina González-Estévez. 2025. "Autophagy in Tissue Repair and Regeneration" Cells 14, no. 4: 282. https://doi.org/10.3390/cells14040282

APA Style

Moreno-Blas, D., Adell, T., & González-Estévez, C. (2025). Autophagy in Tissue Repair and Regeneration. Cells, 14(4), 282. https://doi.org/10.3390/cells14040282

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop