Review Article

JOURNAL OF BACTERIOLOGY AND VIROLOGY. 30 September 2025. 205-221
https://doi.org/10.4167/jbv.2025.55.3.205

ABSTRACT


MAIN

INTRODUCTION

Nontuberculous mycobacteria (NTM) comprise all mycobacterial species other than Mycobacteriumtuberculosis (Mtb), M. africanum, M. bovis, M. canetti, M. caprae, M. pinnipedii, and M. leprae. These organisms are ubiquitous in soil and water, with approximately 200 identified species (1, 2). The M. avium complex (MAC) and the M. abscessus (Mabc) complex account for most cases of NTM pulmonary disease (NTM-PD). Both complexes cause disease in immunocompromised and apparently immunocompetent individuals (3). The Mabc complex comprises three subspecies: Mabc, M. abscessus subsp. massiliense, and subsp. bolletii. Subspecies abscessus and bolletii are frequently treatment-refractory because they carry erm(41), an inducible macrolide-resistance gene (4, 5). Despite the growing awareness of NTM-PD, the precise host–pathogen interactions that determine the outcome remain poorly understood, hindering therapy development. The rise of drug-resistant NTM infections therefore underscores an urgent need for novel and innovative therapeutic strategies to improve patient outcomes (6).

Autophagy is activated by metabolic, infectious, and inflammatory stress and targets impaired cellular organelles, intracellular proteins, and invading microbes by sequestering them in double- or multimembraned cytoplasmic vesicles called autophagosomes (7). These autophagosomes then fuse with lysosomes, where resident hydrolases degrade their cargo (8). Beyond its recycling role, autophagy safeguards cells against infection, inflammation, and immunometabolic imbalance (9, 10, 11). Recent studies have revealed that autophagy can act selectively, recognizing damaged organelles, protein aggregates, or intracellular bacteria to maintain intracellular homeostasis (12, 13). Selective autophagy relies on cargo receptors containing a microtubule-associated protein light chain 3 (LC3)-interacting region that bridge tagged substrates to the autophagic machinery (12, 13). In this Review, we briefly discussed bulk and selective autophagy and host–pathogen interactions during NTM infection. We further examined how autophagy-related pathways and genes influence host defense and susceptibility to NTM as well as highlighted agents that activate host autophagy and lysosomal function to enhance antimicrobial immunity.

OVERVIEW OF AUTOPHAGY

Autophagy classification

Autophagy is broadly classified into macroautophagy (hereafter referred to as autophagy), microautophagy, and chaperone-mediated autophagy. Microautophagy directly sequesters cellular material—including KFERQ-tagged proteins and bulk cytosol—via membrane invaginations or protrusions of late endosomes or lysosomes, in an endosomal sorting complex required for transport (ESCRT)-dependent or -independent manner (14, 15, 16, 17, 18). Unlike macroautophagy, microautophagy bypasses autophagosome formation and is usually non-selective, although specialized selective variants have been identified (19). Chaperone-mediated autophagy targets specific proteins containing KFERQ-like motifs via the cytosolic chaperone, heat shock cognate protein HSC70. HSC70 delivers these substrates to the lysosomal membrane receptor, lysosomal associated membrane protein (LAMP) 2A, which mediates their translocation into the lysosomal membrane for degradation (20).

Autophagy process

Autophagy, including its selective forms, is mediated by autophagy-related genes (ATGs), which regulate every pathway stage (Fig. 1). ATGs control the initiation, elongation, and maturation of autophagosomes and enable cells to adapt to stress or nutrient deprivation (21). Autophagy is initiated when the UNC-51-like kinase (ULK) complex—comprising focal adhesion kinase family interacting protein of 200 kDa (FIP200), ATG13, ATG101, and serine/threonine kinases ULK1 and ULK2—is activated, a step normally inhibited by mammalian target of rapamycin complex 1 (mTORC1) (22, 23, 24). During energy depletion, AMP-activated protein kinase (AMPK) inactivates mTORC1, thereby permitting ULK-complex assembly at the endoplasmic reticulum membrane and recruitment of downstream ATGs that induce autophagosome formation (25). Next, the ULK-complex recruits class III phosphatidylinositol-3 (PI(3))-kinase complex 1 (PI3KC3-C1), another critical complex for autophagy initiation, to produce PI(3) phosphate (P) on the autophagic membrane. PI3KC3-C1 comprises vacuolar protein sorting (VPS) 34, VPS15, Beclin-1 (BECN1), ATG14, and nuclear receptor binding factor 2 (NRBF2) (26). PI3KC3-C1 binds to membranes via ATG14, BECN1, and VPS34, subsequently catalyzing PI(3)P production by VPS34, thereby facilitating omegasome formation (26, 27). Subsequent autophagosome biogenesis relies on WD-repeat protein interacting with phosphoinositides proteins—effectors of PI(3)P—and two ubiquitin-like conjugation systems (28, 29). The latter comprise (i) the ATG12–ATG5–ATG16L1 complex (assembled by ATG7 and ATG10) and (ii) the cascade that lipidates ATG8 family proteins via ATG7 and ATG3. Lipidated ATG8 family members are essential for phagophore expansion and cargo recognition. The cysteine protease ATG4 cleaves pro-ATG8s at their C-terminus, exposing the glycine residue required for conjugation to phosphatidylethanolamine (PE) (30). Among the four mammalian ATG4 isoforms, ATG4A preferentially processes gamma-aminobutyric acid receptor-associated proteins, whereas ATG4B has broad specificity for all ATG8s (31, 32). Processed ATG8s are then activated by the E1-like enzyme ATG7 and transferred to membrane-bound PE by ATG3 (8). Consequently, soluble ATG8s (e.g., LC3-I) are converted into membrane-anchored, lipidated forms (e.g., LC3-II) (28, 33). WD-repeat protein interacting with phosphoinositides 2 recruits the ATG12–ATG5–ATG16L1 complex to phagophores, where it acts as an E3-ligase for ATG8 lipidation, drives phagophore expansion and maturation, and ultimately promotes autophagosome–lysosome fusion (28).

https://cdn.apub.kr/journalsite/sites/jbv/2025-055-03/N0290550302/images/JBV_2025_v55n3_205_f001.jpg
Fig. 1

Schematic representation of the macroautophagy pathway and its key molecular components. The macroautophagy pathway proceeds through distinct stages: induction, initiation, elongation, and maturation/fusion. The process is initiated by stress signals or starvation, activating the ULK complex (ULK1/2, ATG13, FIP200, and ATG101) and its regulation by mTORC1 and AMPK. The initiation phase involves the PI3KC3-C1 complex (containing VPS34, BECN1, VPS15, ATG14, and NRBF2) which generates PI(3)P at the omegasome. During elongation, two ubiquitin-like conjugation systems operate: the ATG12-ATG5-ATG16L1 complex and the ATG8/LC3 system. LC3 undergoes processing from pro-LC3 to LC3-I and finally to membrane-bound LC3-II. The maturation phase involves fusion with lysosomes, facilitated by the HOPS complex, RAB proteins, and SNARE complexes, ultimately leading to cargo degradation in the acidic autolysosome (pH ≈ 4.5). P, phosphorylation; ER, endoplasmic reticulum; ATG, autophagy-related genes; HOPS, homotypic fusion and vacuole protein sorting complex; LC3, microtubule-associated protein 1 light chain 3; SNARE, soluble N-ethylmaleimide-sensitive factor attachment protein receptors.

Autophagy maturation involves the fusion of autophagosomes with vesicles from endolysosomal compartments to form amphisomes, leading to the formation of degradative autolysosomes. This process is regulated by soluble N-ethylmaleimide-sensitive factor attachment protein receptors (SNARE) proteins, ATG8 family members, membrane tethering factors, and Rab GTPases (34, 35). Several regulatory mechanisms underlying autophagosome maturation are currently being identified. These mechanisms are modulated by post-translational modifications of key proteins, spatial–temporal regulation of phosphoinositide lipids, Rab GTPase activity, and lysosome biosynthesis and degradation (34, 35). Impaired autophagosome maturation is associated with the pathogenesis of various human diseases, including neurodegeneration, cancer, and lysosomal storage disorders (34, 35). Further research into autophagy maturation will enhance our understanding of disease mechanisms and support the development of novel therapeutics against infection.

Selective autophagy: xenophagy

Selective autophagy targets specific cellular components—such as damaged organelles (e.g., mitophagy and pexophagy), protein aggregates (aggrephagy), and intracellular bacteria (xenophagy)—for lysosomal degradation. This process begins when autophagy receptors possessing ATG8-interacting motifs (AIMs) or LC3-interacting regions (LIRs) recognize and bind specific cargo. These receptors interact with ATG8 family proteins, such as LC3 and gamma-aminobutyric acid receptor-associated proteins, facilitating cargo delivery to the autophagy machinery and eventual lysosomal degradation (Fig. 2) (12, 13, 36). Xenophagy, a subtype of selective autophagy, targets intracellular pathogens, such as Mycobacterium, Salmonella, and Listeria, by tagging them with ubiquitin. Ubiquitinated pathogens are recognized by selective autophagy receptors—including p62 (sequestome-1), neighbor of BRCA1 gene 1 (NBR1), optineurin (OPTN), and nuclear dot protein 52 kDa (NDP52)—which link them to autophagy machinery for lysosomal degradation (13, 37). However, several intracellular pathogens have evolved mechanisms to disrupt key xenophagy steps—including ubiquitination, cargo recognition, autophagosome formation, or lysosomal fusion—thus evading degradation. For example, Mtb impairs autophagosome acidification, whereas Salmonella secretes effectors that disrupt host autophagy signaling to escape lysosomal degradation (38, 39, 40). Additionally, some pathogens manipulate autophagy-related pathways to establish replication- permissive niches during chronic infection (41). Extensive reviews (42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49) have examined pathogen strategies to modulate host autophagy pathways. Therefore, this Review does not detail individual pathogen strategies to subvert host autophagy or xenophagy during infection.

https://cdn.apub.kr/journalsite/sites/jbv/2025-055-03/N0290550302/images/JBV_2025_v55n3_205_f002.jpg
Fig. 2

Xenophagy pathways. Xenophagy involves these five steps: (1) Phagocytosis and escape from the phagosome or membrane damage. (2) Bacteria tagged with ubiquitin molecules. (3) Autophagic receptors like p62, NBR1, OPTN, and NDP52 recognize tagged bacteria. (4) Autophagosome formation. (5) Lysosomal fusion and degradation. Autophagic receptors have two key domains: UBD and AIM/LIR. They link ubiquitinated bacteria and LC3 on autophagosomal membrane, leading to sequestration of bacteria within the autophagosome. Ub, Ubiquitin molecule; UBD, Ubiquitin binding domain; AIM/LIR, Atg8-interacting motif/LC3-interacting region; OPTN, optineurin; NDP52, nuclear dot protein 52 kDa; NBR1, neighbor of BRCA1 gene 1; LC3, microtubule-associated protein 1 light chain 3.

Antibiotic resistance has become a critical global health concern. Multiple NTM species are notoriously difficult to treat because of their intrinsic drug resistance (50). To address NTM drug resistance, researchers are exploring novel host- directed approaches—including autophagy-inducing nanoformulations and siRNA-based gene silencing—alongside chimeric antibiotics designed to overcome multidrug-resistant infection (39). Additionally, animal infection models suggest that several autophagy proteins function beyond xenophagy to influence bacterial pathogenesis, suggesting that pathogens broadly modulate host surveillance pathways (38). Understanding how bacteria evade xenophagy and how pathogens interfere with host autophagy is crucial for developing advanced therapies that restore effective immunity to intracellular pathogens, including NTMs (38, 39).

NTM INFECTION AND HOST IMMUNE DEFENSE MECHANISMS

Although generally environmental and non-pathogenic, NTMs can cause various infections in the lungs, lymph nodes, central nervous system, and skin (51). NTM-PD is the most prevalent presentation and is increasing globally in both immunodeficient and immunocompetent individuals (52). Macrophage-driven innate immunity orchestrates the initial host defense and primes adaptive responses during NTM infection (52). Innate immune receptors and their signaling cascades induce the activation of antimicrobial proteins and inflammatory mediators in the innate immune network during infection (53, 54). Both hyper- and hypo-inflammatory states can compromise host defense and drive pathological progression (53). Autophagy is a well-known effector system of innate immunity (54), but its specific role in NTM infection remains underexplored. Additionally, how NTMs evade autophagic defense is poorly understood. The next section comprehensively discusses current insights into autophagy during NTM infection.

Additionally, NTM successfully subvert adaptive immunity, promoting virulence and persistent infection even after antimicrobial chemotherapy (51, 55). NTM infection contributes to T-cell exhaustion, characterized by diminished interferon (IFN)-γ production and continuous expression of inhibitory receptors such as cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4), programed cell death protein 1 (PD-1), and T-cell immuno- globulin domain and mucin domain 3 (TIM-3) (56). Elucidating immune dysregulation and exhaustion should reveal key prognostic, predictive, and therapeutic biomarkers that reflect—and potentially recalibrate—the patient’s immune status. Such knowledge could inform host-directed immunomodulatory therapies that restore T-cell function and maintain inflammatory homeostasis, enabling more personalized treatment.

Individual NTM species employ diverse strategies to survive and replicate intracellularly, subverting multiple host-defense pathways, yet the specific microbial effectors that drive immune evasion remain poorly defined. Among NTM species, Mabc enhances cellular survival by inducing phagosome pores, suppressing phagosome maturation, modulating inflammatory cytokine production, and delaying host cell apoptosis (57). The ESX-4 (one of type VII) secretion system is central to this process: deletion of the key gene eccB4 reduces Mabc’s capacity to prevent phagosomal acidification and membrane damage, highlighting the critical role of ESX-4 in Mabc virulence (58). M. avium (Mav) causes chronic lung infection in mice, residing in granuloma-like structures that shield it from immune clearance (59). Mav control depends on coordinated innate (e.g., lipocalin 2 and neutrophils) and adaptive (e.g., IFN-γ and antibodies) responses (59). In human primary macrophages, mitochondrial import of pyruvate has recently been shown to enhance reactive oxygen species (ROS) via reverse electron transport at complex I, restricting Mav growth (60). Exploring the detailed mechanisms underlying these host–NTM interactions should facilitate the development of immunotherapeutic strategies to correct immune dysfunction and combat chronic infection.

NTM INFECTION AND AUTOPHAGY

Autophagy during NTM infection

An early study reported that therapeutic concentrations of azithromycin suppress lysosomal acidification in human primary macrophages, thereby impairing the autophagic clearance of Mabc (61), underscoring the importance of autophagy in NTM defense. A recent study showed that host macrophage effector responses vary between NTM species. In human THP-1 macrophages, autophagosome formation is greater after infection with M. abscessus and M. smegmatis than with M. intracellulare, Mav, or Mtb (62). Pathogenic potential also differs between smooth (S) and rough (R) variants of Mabc (Mabc-S and -R) (63). Mabc-S persists intracellularly by blocking phagosome maturation and allowing limited phagosome–cytoplasm communication. In contrast, Mabc-R induces stronger autophagy and apoptosis than Mabc-S and forms extracellular cords (63, 64). These findings highlight the need for therapies targeting both intracellular bacteria and extracellular aggregates (63).

During infection, M. marinum becomes ubiquitinated in host macrophages and is sequestered in LAMP-1-positive vacuoles resembling lysosomes. Interestingly, this process occurs independently of classical autophagy (Fig. 3). ESX-1 secretion is required for M. marinum escape into the cytosol but not for its ubiquitination (65). These findings suggest that ubiquitinated M. marinum is targeted for lysosomal degradation via a non-canonical, autophagy-independent pathway or escape it to remain cytosolic and exploit actin-based motility (65). Moreover, a previous study used a zebrafish model to analyze the autophagy response to infection at high resolution in vivo. During infection, M. marinum is primarily associated with green fluorescent protein (GFP)-LC3-positive vesicles, and ~70% of larger autophagic vesicles are colocalized with lysosomal markers, mainly in leukocytes (66). This in vivo platform offers dynamic insights into autophagy-mediated defense against diverse NTM species.

https://cdn.apub.kr/journalsite/sites/jbv/2025-055-03/N0290550302/images/JBV_2025_v55n3_205_f003.jpg
Fig. 3

Autophagy during M. marinum infection. M. marinum is phagocytosed, activating its ubiquitination. The ubiquitinated M. marinum is eliminated by LAMP-1-positive vacuoles via non-canonical lysosomal degradation. The ubiquitinated M. marinum is captured by p62 and OPTN, which navigate toward the LC3-conjugated autophagosome. DRAM1 promotes the lysosomal delivery to the autophagosome, leading to the phagolysosomal fusion. The ESCRT is recruited to the damaged vesicles containing ubiquitinated M. marinum, eliciting the endolysosomal degradation. DRAM1, DNA damage-regulated autophagy modulator 1; LC3, microtubule-associated protein 1 light chain 3; OPTN, optineurin; Ub, ubiquitin; LAMP1, lysosome-associated membrane protein 1; ESCRT, endosomal sorting complex required for transport.

Selective xenophagy receptors, OPTN, and p62 are essential for host defense against M. marinum, as shown in the zebrafish model (67, 68). OPTN and p62 compensate for each other’s loss of function and act additively to protect against M. marinum infection; zebrafish lacking both receptors showed greater susceptibility than either single mutant (67). Damage-regulated autophagy modulator-1 (DRAM1) interacts with M. marinum in macrophages during infection. DRAM1-positive bacilli colocalize with autophagosomes and lysosomes, promoting lysosomal delivery and enhancing macrophage bactericidal activity (69). DRAM1 is required for phagosome maturation, and its deficiency exacerbates pyroptotic cell death during M. marinum infection (Fig. 3) (70). Notably, both OPTN and p62 still confer protection in DRAM1-deficient zebrafish, indicating that xenophagy receptors enhance antimycobacterial defense independently of DRAM1 (67). Additionally, in the soil ameba Dictyostelium discoideum, infectionrecruits ESCRT proteins tumor susceptibility gene 101, VPS32, and VPS4 to damaged regions of the pathogen-containing vacuole (Fig. 3) (71). The TNF receptor-associated factor (TRAF)-like E3 ligase TrafE is essential for the ESCRT- and autophagy-mediated endolysosomal damage response that restricts M. marinum via xenophagy in D. discoideum(72). Future studies are needed to elucidate how selective autophagy receptors and the related ESCRT system activate host defense against diverse NTM species and identify small molecules or drugs that selectively boost xenophagy as autophagy-based therapeutics against NTM infection.

ATGs and NTM infection

In the Drosophila infection model, M. marinum activates cytokine–signal transducer and activator of transcription signaling, inhibits Atg2 expression, and drives abnormal lipid-droplet accumulation, creating a better environment for bacterial survival (Fig. 4) (73). Similarly, interleukin-6 (IL-6) enhances mycobacterial survival and lipid deposition in human macrophages (73). These studies suggest that augmenting key autophagy genes or restoring lipid homeostasis could restrict NTM survival within host cells, but elucidating the precise mechanisms requires further study.

https://cdn.apub.kr/journalsite/sites/jbv/2025-055-03/N0290550302/images/JBV_2025_v55n3_205_f004.jpg
Fig. 4

ATGs and NTM infection. M. marinum infection activates cytokine-STAT3 signaling pathways, leading to the upregulation of Atg2 and the abnormal accumulation of lipid droplets. It suppresses the survival of M. marinum within host system. Under mycobacteria-containing vacuole conditions, M. marinum ESX-1 promotes the expression of Atgs, leading to the formation of autophagosome. However, M. marinum ESX-1 inhibits autophagic flux. Additionally, M. marinum MimG, an ortholog of Mtb Rv3242c, suppresses autophagic process, thus eliciting an increase in bacterial survival. M. smegmatis is recognized by TLR2 and activates the transcription of multiple ATGs, resulting in the induction of alternative autophagy, which is independent of ubiquitination or autophagy receptors. This pathway ultimately reduces bacterial survival. The secretion of mycolactone toxin by M. ulcerans triggers necrosis, thereby increasing bacterial evasion. STAT3, signal transducer and activator of transcription 3; ATG, autophagy-related gene; TLR2, toll-like receptor 2.

Transcriptomic analyses revealed that M. marinum—but not Legionella pneumophila—activates autophagy- and ESCRT- related genes in D. discoideum, pointing to pathogen-specific activation of these pathways (74). The non-pathogenic M. smegmatis triggers a non-canonical autophagy pathway in THP-1 macrophages toll-like receptor 2 (TLR2) and ATG upregulation; LC3 recruitment is ubiquitin- and receptor-independent yet still suppresses intracellular M. smegmatis survival (Fig. 4) (75). The ESX-1 secretion system of M. marinum is required to both upregulate autophagy genes and manipulate the pathway. M. marinum ESX-1 recruits autophagosomes to the mycobacteria-containing vacuole (MCV) where the bacterium survives (Fig. 4). Simultaneously, ESX-1 suppresses autophagic flux and cargo degradation within the MCV, thereby favoring bacterial survival inside host cells (76). A previous study showed that mycolactone, the exotoxin produced by M. ulcerans—the causative agent of Buruli ulcer—induces necrosis, enabling bacterial evasion of host immunity (Fig. 4). Notably, mycolactone also activates mTOR signaling and suppresses autophagy in infected macrophages (77). Additionally, Mtb Rv3242c—encoding A mannosylated glycoprotein phosphoribosyltransferase—and its M. marinum ortholog MimG suppress autophagy, thereby preventing intracellular bacterial clearance (Fig. 4) (78). Collectively, these findings suggest that various NTM effectors act as virulence and immunomodulatory factors by suppressing host autophagy, highlighting their potential as novel therapeutic targets. Consequently, detailed studies are warranted to determine how individual NTM species and their effectors drive pathogenesis and evade host defense mechanisms, including autophagy, to inform preventive and therapeutic development against NTM infections.

Specific genetic variants of ATGs and the risk of NTM infection

There is growing evidence suggesting that autophagy genes influence host protection against, or susceptibility to, NTM infection. A genome-wide association study of Buruli ulcer patients and controls showed that the protective G allele of an ATG16L1 missense variant correlates with decreased antibacterial autophagy, implicating autophagy in disease development (79). Additionally, variants in PARK2 (rs1333955) and NOD2 (rs9302752 and rs2066842) are associated with an increased risk of Buruli ulcer, whereas ATG16L1 rs2241880 appears to protect against the ulcerative form of Buruli ulcer (80). Furthermore, in Korean patients with NTM-PD, PARK2 expression is downregulated and linked to host susceptibility (81). These findings suggest that genetic variation in ATGs influences both the risk and progression of NTM disease.

AUTOPHAGY-TARGETING STRATEGIES AGAINST NTM INFECTION

Although most NTM species are environmentally non-pathogenic, human infections are rising worldwide and are difficult to treat due to intrinsic resistance to commonly used antibiotics (50). Several agents that do not directly kill NTMs nevertheless enhance host defense against these pathogens in vitro and in vivo. This section discusses recent findings that autophagy mediates the host-directed antimicrobial effects of such compounds during NTM infection (Table 1). An early study showed that 1,25(OH)₂D₃ and LL-37—the C-terminal peptide of CAMP—promote autophagy-mediated killing of M. marinum in THP-1 cells (82). Together with findings in vitamin-D-treated Mtb-infected macrophages (83), these data strongly indicate that activation of the vitamin D receptor—CAMP axis enhances autophagy-dependent defense in human monocytic cells.

Table 1.

Therapeutics targeting autophagy against NTM infection

Drug candidate Infectious agent Mechanism of action Study model Biological actions Ref
1α,
25-Dihydroxyvitamin D3
M. marinum Induction of CAMP THP-1, U937,
Atg5−/− MEF
Induced CAMP improved the antimicrobial activity via autophagolysosome localization and suppressed pro-inflammatory cytokines (82)
Trehalose MAC
M. fortuitum
Activate PIKFYVE, TFEB nuclear translocation U937, PBMC from healthy or HIV infected donors, mouse Induced HIV-mediated inhibition of xenophagy flux, reduced HIV-P24 levels and restricted NTM survival during single or HIV co-infections (84)
2-DG M. marinum Autophagy induction RAW264.7,
WT and Tnf−/− zebrafish
Decreased phagocytosis and restricted M. marinum growth by autophagy induction and enhancing TNF-α expression (85)
Trifluoperazine,
Chlorproethazine
M. avium TFEB nuclear translocation Purified CD14+ monocytes from healthy donors Restricted Mav survival via reduced NADPH oxidase-driven ROS and mildly enhanced autophagy flux (86)
Dimethyl itaconate M. avium Autophagy flux activation Macrophages from Atg7fl/fl, Atg7−/− mice, BMDMs, and PMs,
in vivo mouse model
Enhanced autophagy and phagosomal maturation are associated with reduced levels of IL-6/IL-10 and STAT3, autophagy partially contributed to the antimicrobial response. (87)
V46 M. abscessus, MDR-M. abscessus TFEB nuclear translocation BMDMs, macrophages from Atg7fl/fl and Atg7−/− mice, mouse Enhanced bacterial clearance in macrophages and lungs via autophagy activation, Inhibited pro-inflammatory cytokines and chemokines (89)
Amiodarone M. avium TFEB nuclear translocation Human macrophages, zebrafish embryo Reduced bacterial burden via TFEB-regulated autophagy and lysosomal biogenesis in macrophages and zebrafish embryos (90)
Rufomycin M. abscessus,
rough strain of M. massilense
TFEB nuclear translocation BMDMs, mouse   Facilitated bacterial eradication by augmenting autophagy and lysosomal gene expression, decreased mitochondrial dysfunction and oxidative stress (91)
Degarelix M. marinum PI3Kinase inhibition BMDMs, mouse and zebrafish Inhibited bacterial burden and necrotic granuloma fraction, elevated IFN-γ expression levels in M. marinum infected zebrafish (92)
Raloxifene M. abscessus Autophagy activation A549, huh7, RAW264.7 Prevented bacterial invasion and proliferation by enhancing TRIM/ GABA pathways, inhibited cholesterol biosynthesis identified via transcriptomic profiling (93)
TSR M. marinum, ER stress-mediated autophagy RAW264.7,
zebrafish larvae
Reduced intracellular bacterial load by promoting the ER stress pathway through eIF2α and PERK phosphorylation and enhanced LC3-II conversion (94)
Rapamycin M. smegmatis Non-autophagy pathway RAW264.7, A549, LC3B and Atg5-deficient macrophages Antimicrobial effects are seen at higher concentration, independent on LC3B and Atg5 related pathways (95)
AAT M. intracellulare Autophagy activation PBMC from AAT-infused patients, human alveolar macrophages, THP-1 Reduced bacterial burden by enhancing phagosome-lysosome fusion, autophagosome maturation, and inhibiting NF-κB and A20 expression (96)
IL-17A, IL-17F M. terrae Autophagy activation RAW 264.7 IL-17F reduced the intracellular bacterial load by increasing the number and size of autophagosomes and LC3B-II accumulation, IL-17F stimulated autophagy more effectively than IL-17A (97)
Metformin M. avium AMPK activation hMDMs, BMDMs, mouse Increased the number of T cells that produce IFN-γ in lung thus limiting Mav growth, elevated mtROS production, phagosomal maturation, and acidification in macrophages (98)

AAT, alpha-1-antitrypsin; BMDMs, bone marrow derived macrophages; CAMP, cathelicidin antimicrobial peptide; 2-DG, 2-deoxyglucose; hMDMs, human monocyte-derived macrophages; HIV, human immunodeficiency virus; MAC, Mycobacterium avium complex; MDR, multidrug-resistant; PI3 Kinase, Phosphoinositide 3-kinase; PIKFYVE, a FYVE finger-containing phosphoinositide kinase; PM, peritoneal macrophages; TSR Thiostrepton

Trehalose, a disaccharide and potent autophagy inducer, induces aggrephagy and suppresses Mtb and NTM growth in human macrophages, including during co-infection with HIV (84). Mechanistically, trehalose activates PIKFYVE–transcription factor EB (TFEB) signaling and enhances xenophagic flux, thereby restricting mycobacterial replication (84). These reports suggest that there are therapeutic strategies that boost autophagy and lysosomal function for NTM infections, whether isolated or concurrent with HIV. Pretreatment of zebrafish larvae with 2-deoxy-D-glucose, a glycolysis inhibitor, confers protection against M. marinum, possibly via increased TNF-α production (85). These findings suggest that the time point to treat NTM infection is essential for aerobic glycolysis-associated host protection. Future studies should determine how manipulating aerobic glycolysis influence infection outcome and assess whether such modulators can serve as preventive treatments or vaccine adjuvants for NTM infection.

Phenothiazines—specifically trifluoperazine and chlorproethazine—suppress intracellular Mav growth in primary human macrophages and increase autophagic flux and nuclear translocation of TFEB (86). However, this autophagy activation does not appear to drive their host-defense effect. Instead, partial control of Mav involves inhibition of NADPH oxidase- mediated ROS production (86). Dimethyl itaconate (DMI)—a cell-permeable ester derivative of itaconate—exerts multifaceted host-defense effects against Mtb and Mav, at least partly via autophagy activation (87). Signal transducer and activator of transcription 3 (STAT3) regulates autophagy transcriptionally by controlling ATGs such as BECN1, PIK3C3, cathepsin B/L, and BCL2/adenovirus E1B 19 kDa protein-interacting protein 3 and can suppress autophagy through interactions with forkhead box O 1 and 3 (88). Because DMI inhibits STAT3 signaling during mycobacterial infection (87), it will be important to determine whether this STAT3 inhibition further enhances—rather than blocks—autophagy-mediated host defense.

Recent studies suggest that TFEB is a promising target for host-directed therapeutics against NTM infection. V46, a resveratrol analog, significantly restricts the growth of both S and R Mabc morphotypes—including multidrug-resistant strains—in macrophages and in mouse lungs. Its activity partly involves reduced pro-inflammatory cytokines/chemokines and enhanced autophagy with TFEB nuclear translocation during Mabc infection (89). Despite being a resveratrol analog, V46 acts independently of SIRT1 or SIRT3 expression (89). Amiodarone—an anti-arrhythmic drug—exerts therapeutic effects against Mtb and Mav in primary human macrophages by activating autophagy and directing mycobacteria to autophagosomes (90). Amiodarone-induced autophagy correlates with increased TFEB activity and nuclear translocation, and blocking autophagic flux with bafilomycin diminishes its antimicrobial effect (90). Rufomycins 4–7, which target mycobacterial ATP-dependent Clp protease ATP-binding subunit ClpC1, exert dual antimicrobial actions against R strains of Mabc. Host-side, they suppress inflammation and promote TFEB nuclear translocation, thereby upregulating autophagy and lysosomal genes (91). Together, these data strongly suggest that TFEB activation is critical for the suppression of NTM infection. Future studies should elucidate how TFEB and related transcription factors can be harnessed to combat NTM disease.

The anticancer drug degarelix, despite lacking direct antimycobacterial activity, significantly reduces intracellular Mtb H37Rv survival and suppresses pathology in M. marinum-infected zebrafish models(92). This effect depends, at least in part, on the autophagy-initiation pathway (92). Raloxifene, a broad-spectrum antibacterial drug, transcriptionally upregulates autophagy pathways—including TRIM and GABA signaling—thereby increasing autophagy and preventing bacterial invasion and proliferation during methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and Mabc infection (93). Derivatives of thiostrepton, a thiopeptide antibiotic that targets bacterial ribosomes, induce ER stress-mediated autophagy in host cells and enhance intracellular elimination of M. marinum(94). These findings suggest that various drugs and their derivatives can boost host defense by stimulating autophagy, offering new insights for NTM therapy (94). Conversely, rapamycin an mTOR inhibitor, shows antibacterial activity against M. smegmatis only at high concentrations and even in LC3B- and ATG5-deficient macrophages (95). Thus, autophagy activators may exert context-dependent antimicrobial effects against NTM through mechanisms beyond canonical autophagy activation. Future studies should elucidate the autophagic and non-autophagic mechanisms of these pharmacological models at therapeutically effective concentrations.

Infusion with α1-antitrypsin (AAT) augments host defense against M. intracellulare in monocyte-derived macrophages and in plasma. In macrophages, AAT significantly increases phagolysosomal fusion and autophagy activity. AAT-induced autophagy is mediated by inhibition of M. intracellulare-induced NF-κB activation and A20 expression (96). Both IL-17A and IL-17F enhance autophagic flux, increase autophagosome number and size, and promote the formation of acidic vesicular organelles in RAW264.7 cells. IL-17F is more effective than IL-17A and significantly reduces intracellular M. terrae growth, suggesting that IL-17-mediated autophagy contributes to host defense during NTM infection (97). Furthermore, metformin treatment significantly reduces the pulmonary bacterial load in Mav-infected mice and increases the lung infiltration of Mav-specific IFN-γ-producing T cells (98). Given earlier findings that metformin activates AMPK-dependent autophagy (99), future studies should determine whether its efficacy against Mav lung disease depends on boosting macrophage autophagy.

CONCLUSIONS

Given that NTM pulmonary infections are difficult to treat—owing to multidrug resistance and chronic persistence—interest in host-directed therapy is increasing. Understanding the roles and mechanisms influencing autophagy activation and lysosomal biogenesis may contribute to the development of novel, effective therapies for NTM pulmonary disease. Research on autophagy-mediated host defense against NTM infection is advancing rapidly: recent studies have identified novel molecules and pathways that activate xenophagy and improve the host defense system against NTMs. Despite this, it remains largely unknown how individual NTM species and their effectors evade, manipulate, or disrupt host autophagy to enhance their pathogenesis and virulence. Many key questions remain: Which ATGs and pathways are most critical for controlling NTM infection in vivo? How do pathogen-specific evasion mechanisms operate, and how can we target them therapeutically? Additional research is warranted to understand the molecular interactions of selective autophagy types—mitophagy, xenophagy, and others—interact with other biological pathways and immune responses during NTM infection. Such insights will clarify the nuanced regulatory mechanisms that determine NTM infection outcomes.

Emerging evidence points to autophagy-activating compounds as adjuncts that boost host immunity and enhance conventional antibiotic efficacy. This host-directed approach could open new avenues for the treatment of NTM infection by reinforcing immunity and overcoming pathogen resistance. However, their clinical usefulness remains to be defined. The efficacy and safety of autophagy inducers in clinical settings remain uncertain. Well-designed preclinical and clinical trials are necessary to evaluate these agents, accounting for NTM pathophysiology and patient immune status. These efforts may elucidate the management of NTM disease using autophagy-targeted therapy.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Eun-Kyeong Jo designed the article. Young Jae Kim, Asmita Sapkota, Bomi Lee, Eun-Jin Park, and Eun-Kyeong Jo draft and reviewed the manuscript. Young Jae Kim, Asmita Sapkota, Bomi Lee, and Eun-Jin Park constructed the figures and tables. All the authors made edits and comments.

FUNDING

This work was supported by research fund of Chungnam National University. Figures 1-4 were illustrated via BioRender.com.

ETHICS STATEMENT

Not applicable

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

All authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

References

1

Parrish N. An update on mycobacterial taxonomy, 2016-2017. J Clin Microbiol. 2019;57(5):e 01408-18.

10.1128/JCM.01408-1830602442PMC6498013
2

Fedrizzi T, Meehan CJ, Grottola A, Giacobazzi E, Fregni Serpini G, Tagliazucchi S, et al. Genomic characterization of nontuberculous mycobacteria. Sci Rep. 2017;7:45258.

10.1038/srep4525828345639PMC5366915
3

Shin SH, Jhun BW, Kim SY, Choe J, Jeon K, Huh HJ, et al. Nontuberculous mycobacterial lung diseases caused by mixed infection with Mycobacterium avium complex and Mycobacterium abscessus complex. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2018;62(10):e01105-18.

10.1128/AAC.01105-1830104265PMC6153851
4

Griffith DE, Daley CL. Treatment of Mycobacterium abscessus pulmonary disease. Chest. 2022;161(1):64-75.

10.1016/j.chest.2021.07.035
5

Koh WJ, Stout JE, Yew WW. Advances in the management of pulmonary disease due to Mycobacterium abscessus complex. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2014;18(10):1141-1148.

10.5588/ijtld.14.0134
6

Lange C, Bottger EC, Cambau E, Griffith DE, Guglielmetti L, van Ingen J, et al. Consensus management recommendations for less common non-tuberculous mycobacterial pulmonary diseases. Lancet Infect Dis. 2022;22(7):e178-e190.

10.1016/S1473-3099(21)00586-7
7

Feng Y, He D, Yao Z, Klionsky DJ. The machinery of macroautophagy. Cell Res. 2014;24(1):24-41.

10.1038/cr.2013.16824366339PMC3879710
8

Dikic I, Elazar Z. Mechanism and medical implications of mammalian autophagy. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2018; 19(6):349-364.

10.1038/s41580-018-0003-4
9

Levine B, Kroemer G. Autophagy in the pathogenesis of disease. Cell. 2008;132(1):27-42.

10.1016/j.cell.2007.12.01818191218PMC2696814
10

Marino G, Pietrocola F, Eisenberg T, Kong Y, Malik SA, Andryushkova A, et al. Regulation of autophagy by cytosolic acetyl-coenzyme A. Mol Cell. 2014;53(5):710-725.

10.1016/j.molcel.2014.01.016
11

Tattoli I, Sorbara MT, Vuckovic D, Ling A, Soares F, Carneiro LA, et al. Amino acid starvation induced by invasive bacterial pathogens triggers an innate host defense program. Cell Host Microbe. 2012;11(6):563-575.

10.1016/j.chom.2012.04.012
12

Li W, He P, Huang Y, Li YF, Lu J, Li M, et al. Selective autophagy of intracellular organelles: recent research advances. Theranostics. 2021;11(1):222-256.

10.7150/thno.4986033391472PMC7681076
13

Vargas JNS, Hamasaki M, Kawabata T, Youle RJ, Yoshimori T. The mechanisms and roles of selective autophagy in mammals. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2023;24(3):167-185.

10.1038/s41580-022-00542-2
14

Kuchitsu Y, Taguchi T. Lysosomal microautophagy: an emerging dimension in mammalian autophagy. Trends Cell Biol. 2024;34(7):606-616.

10.1016/j.tcb.2023.11.005
15

McNally EK, Brett CL. The intralumenal fragment pathway mediates ESCRT-independent surface transporter down- regulation. Nat Commun. 2018;9(1):5358.

10.1038/s41467-018-07734-530560896PMC6299085
16

Mejlvang J, Olsvik H, Svenning S, Bruun JA, Abudu YP, Larsen KB, et al. Starvation induces rapid degradation of selective autophagy receptors by endosomal microautophagy. J Cell Biol. 2018;217(10):3640-3655.

10.1083/jcb.20171100230018090PMC6168274
17

Sahu R, Kaushik S, Clement CC, Cannizzo ES, Scharf B, Follenzi A, et al. Microautophagy of cytosolic proteins by late endosomes. Dev Cell. 2011;20(1):131-139.

10.1016/j.devcel.2010.12.00321238931PMC3025279
18

Uytterhoeven V, Lauwers E, Maes I, Miskiewicz K, Melo MN, Swerts J, et al. Hsc70-4 deforms membranes to promote synaptic protein turnover by endosomal microautophagy. Neuron. 2015;88(4):735-748.

10.1016/j.neuron.2015.10.012
19

Mijaljica D, Prescott M, Devenish RJ. Microautophagy in mammalian cells: revisiting a 40-year-old conundrum. Autophagy. 2011;7(7):673-682.

10.4161/auto.7.7.14733
20

Kaushik S, Cuervo AM. The coming of age of chaperone-mediated autophagy. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2018;19(6):365-381.

10.1038/s41580-018-0001-629626215PMC6399518
21

Aman Y, Schmauck-Medina T, Hansen M, Morimoto RI, Simon AK, Bjedov I, et al. Autophagy in healthy aging and disease. Nat Aging. 2021;1(8):634-650.

10.1038/s43587-021-00098-434901876PMC8659158
22

Hosokawa N, Hara T, Kaizuka T, Kishi C, Takamura A, Miura Y, et al. Nutrient-dependent mTORC1 association with the ULK1-Atg13-FIP200 complex required for autophagy. Mol Biol Cell. 2009;20(7):1981-1991.

10.1091/mbc.e08-12-1248
23

Mizushima N. The role of the Atg1/ULK1 complex in autophagy regulation. Curr Opin Cell Biol. 2010;22(2):132-139.

10.1016/j.ceb.2009.12.004
24

Yu L, Chen Y, Tooze SA. Autophagy pathway: Cellular and molecular mechanisms. Autophagy. 2018;14(2):207-215.

10.1080/15548627.2017.137883828933638PMC5902171
25

Yamamoto H, Zhang S, Mizushima N. Autophagy genes in biology and disease. Nat Rev Genet. 2023;24(6):382-400.

10.1038/s41576-022-00562-w36635405PMC9838376
26

Baskaran S, Carlson LA, Stjepanovic G, Young LN, Kim DJ, Grob P, et al. Architecture and dynamics of the autophagic phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase complex. Elife. 2014;3:e05115.

10.7554/eLife.0511525490155PMC4281882
27

Hurley JH, Young LN. Mechanisms of Autophagy Initiation. Annu Rev Biochem. 2017;86:225-244.

10.1146/annurev-biochem-061516-04482028301741PMC5604869
28

Campisi D, Hawkins N, Bonjour K, Wollert T. The role of WIPI2, ATG16L1 and ATG12-ATG5 in selective and nonselective autophagy. J Mol Biol. 2025;437(18):169138.

10.1016/j.jmb.2025.169138
29

Mizushima N. The ATG conjugation systems in autophagy. Curr Opin Cell Biol. 2020;63:1-10.

10.1016/j.ceb.2019.12.001
30

Slobodkin MR, Elazar Z. The Atg8 family: multifunctional ubiquitin-like key regulators of autophagy. Essays Biochem. 2013;55:51-64.

10.1042/bse0550051
31

Li M, Hou Y, Wang J, Chen X, Shao ZM, Yin XM. Kinetics comparisons of mammalian Atg4 homologues indicate selective preferences toward diverse Atg8 substrates. J Biol Chem. 2011;286(9):7327-7338.

10.1074/jbc.M110.19905921177865PMC3044989
32

Woo J, Park E, Dinesh-Kumar SP. Differential processing of Arabidopsis ubiquitin-like Atg8 autophagy proteins by Atg4 cysteine proteases. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014;111(2):863-868.

10.1073/pnas.131820711124379391PMC3896200
33

Hamasaki M, Furuta N, Matsuda A, Nezu A, Yamamoto A, Fujita N, et al. Autophagosomes form at ER-mitochondria contact sites. Nature. 2013;495(7441):389-393.

10.1038/nature11910
34

Zhao YG, Codogno P, Zhang H. Machinery, regulation and pathophysiological implications of autophagosome maturation. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2021;22(11):733-750.

10.1038/s41580-021-00392-434302147PMC8300085
35

Zhao YG, Zhang H. Autophagosome maturation: An epic journey from the ER to lysosomes. J Cell Biol. 2019; 218(3):757-770.

10.1083/jcb.20181009930578282PMC6400552
36

Gatica D, Lahiri V, Klionsky DJ. Cargo recognition and degradation by selective autophagy. Nat Cell Biol. 2018;20(3):233-242.

10.1038/s41556-018-0037-z29476151PMC6028034
37

Sharma V, Verma S, Seranova E, Sarkar S, Kumar D. Selective autophagy and xenophagy in infection and disease. Front Cell Dev Biol. 2018;6:147.

10.3389/fcell.2018.0014730483501PMC6243101
38

Kimmey JM, Stallings CL. Bacterial pathogens versus autophagy: Implications for therapeutic interventions. Trends Mol Med. 2016;22(16):1060-1076.

10.1016/j.molmed.2016.10.00827866924PMC5215815
39

Sharma S, Tiwari M, Tiwari V. Therapeutic strategies against autophagic escape by pathogenic bacteria. Drug Discov Today. 2021;26(3):704-712.

10.1016/j.drudis.2020.12.002
40

Wu S, Shen Y, Zhang S, Xiao Y, Shi S. Salmonella interacts with autophagy to offense or defense. Front Microbiol. 2020;11:721.

10.3389/fmicb.2020.0072132390979PMC7188831
41

Campoy E, Colombo MI. Autophagy in intracellular bacterial infection. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2009;1793(9):1465-1477.

10.1016/j.bbamcr.2009.03.003
42

Aligolighasemabadi F, Bakinowska E, Kielbowski K, Sadeghdoust M, Coombs KM, Mehrbod P, et al. Autophagy and respiratory viruses: Mechanisms, viral exploitation, and therapeutic insights. Cells. 2025;14(6):418.

10.3390/cells1406041840136667PMC11941543
43

Bah A, Vergne I. Macrophage autophagy and bacterial infections. Front Immunol. 2017;8:1483.

10.3389/fimmu.2017.0148329163544PMC5681717
44

Cai J, Zhou H, Liu M, Zhang D, Lv J, Xue H, et al. Host immunity and intracellular bacteria evasion mechanisms: Enhancing host-directed therapies with drug delivery systems. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2025;65(6):107492.

10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2025.107492
45

Campoy E, Colombo MI. Autophagy subversion by bacteria. Curr Top Microbiol Immunol. 2009;335:227-250.

10.1007/978-3-642-00302-8_11
46

Mishra A, Rawat V, Zhang K, Jagannath C. The pathway of autophagy in the epigenetic landscape of Mycobacterium-host interactions. Autophagy. 2025:1-19.

10.1080/15548627.2025.2511074
47

Rahman MA, Sarker A, Ayaz M, Shatabdy AR, Haque N, Jalouli M, et al. An update on the study of the molecular mechanisms involved in autophagy during bacterial pathogenesis. Biomedicines. 2024;12(8):1757.

10.3390/biomedicines1208175739200221PMC11351677
48

Thomas DR, Newton P, Lau N, Newton HJ. Interfering with autophagy: The opposing strategies deployed by Legionella pneumophila and Coxiella burnetii effector proteins. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2020;10:599762.

10.3389/fcimb.2020.59976233251162PMC7676224
49

Wang Z, Li C. Xenophagy in innate immunity: A battle between host and pathogen. Dev Comp Immunol. 2020; 109:103693.

10.1016/j.dci.2020.103693
50

Johansen MD, Herrmann JL, Kremer L. Non-tuberculous mycobacteria and the rise of Mycobacterium abscessus. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2020;18(7):392-407.

10.1038/s41579-020-0331-1
51

Wang Z, Sun X, Lin Y, Fu Y, Yi Z. Stealth in non-tuberculous mycobacteria: clever challengers to the immune system. Microbiol Res. 2025;292:128039.

10.1016/j.micres.2024.128039
52

Shamaei M, Mirsaeidi M. Nontuberculous mycobacteria, macrophages, and host innate immune response. Infect Immun. 2021;89(8):e0081220.

10.1128/IAI.00812-2034097459PMC8281211
53

Kim JK, Jo EK. Host and microbial regulation of mitochondrial reactive oxygen species during mycobacterial infections. Mitochondrion. 2024;75:101852.

10.1016/j.mito.2024.101852
54

Weiss G, Schaible UE. Macrophage defense mechanisms against intracellular bacteria. Immunol Rev. 2015;264(1):182-203.

10.1111/imr.1226625703560PMC4368383
55

Lindestam Arlehamn CS, Benson B, Kuan R, Dill-McFarland KA, Peterson GJ, Paul S, et al. T-cell deficiency and hyperinflammatory monocyte responses associate with Mycobacterium avium complex lung disease. Front Immunol. 2022;13:1016038.

10.3389/fimmu.2022.101603836263044PMC9574438
56

Gramegna A, Lombardi A, Lore NI, Amati F, Barone I, Azzara C, et al. Innate and adaptive lymphocytes in non-tuberculous mycobacteria lung disease: A review. Front Immunol. 2022;13:927049.

10.3389/fimmu.2022.92704935837393PMC9273994
57

Hosseini A, Koushesh Saba M, Watkins CB. Microbial antagonists to biologically control postharvest decay and preserve fruit quality. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2024;64(21):7330-7342.

10.1080/10408398.2023.2184323
58

Laencina L, Dubois V, Le Moigne V, Viljoen A, Majlessi L, Pritchard J, et al. Identification of genes required for Mycobacterium abscessus growth in vivo with a prominent role of the ESX-4 locus. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018;115(5):E1002-E1011.

10.1073/pnas.171319511529343644PMC5798338
59

Haug M, Awuh JA, Steigedal M, Frengen Kojen J, Marstad A, Nordrum IS, et al. Dynamics of immune effector mechanisms during infection with Mycobacterium avium in C57BL/6 mice. Immunology. 2013;140(2):232-243.

10.1111/imm.1213123746054PMC3784169
60

Rost LM, Louet C, Bruheim P, Flo TH, Gidon A. Pyruvate supports RET-dependent mitochondrial ROS production to control Mycobacterium avium infection in human primary macrophages. Front Immunol. 2022;13:891475.

10.3389/fimmu.2022.89147535874747PMC9298545
61

Renna M, Schaffner C, Brown K, Shang S, Tamayo MH, Hegyi K, et al. Azithromycin blocks autophagy and may predispose cystic fibrosis patients to mycobacterial infection. J Clin Invest. 2011;121(9):3554-3563.

10.1172/JCI4609521804191PMC3163956
62

Feng Z, Bai X, Wang T, Garcia C, Bai A, Li L, et al. Differential responses by human macrophages to infection with Mycobacterium tuberculosis and non-tuberculous mycobacteria. Front Microbiol. 2020;11:116.

10.3389/fmicb.2020.0011632117140PMC7018682
63

Viljoen A, Herrmann JL, Onajole OK, Stec J, Kozikowski AP, Kremer L. Controlling extra- and intramacrophagic Mycobacterium abscessus by targeting mycolic acid transport. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2017;7:388.

10.3389/fcimb.2017.0038828920054PMC5585149
64

Roux AL, Viljoen A, Bah A, Simeone R, Bernut A, Laencina L, et al. The distinct fate of smooth and rough Mycobacterium abscessus variants inside macrophages. Open Biol. 2016;6(11):160185.

10.1098/rsob.16018527906132PMC5133439
65

Collins CA, De Maziere A, van Dijk S, Carlsson F, Klumperman J, Brown EJ. Atg5-independent sequestration of ubiquitinated mycobacteria. PLoS Pathog. 2009;5(5):e1000430.

10.1371/journal.ppat.100043019436699PMC2673685
66

Hosseini R, Lamers GE, Hodzic Z, Meijer AH, Schaaf MJ, Spaink HP. Correlative light and electron microscopy imaging of autophagy in a zebrafish infection model. Autophagy. 2014;10(10):1844-1857.

10.4161/auto.2999225126731PMC4198367
67

Xie J, Meijer AH. Xenophagy receptors Optn and p62 and autophagy modulator Dram1 independently promote the zebrafish host defense against Mycobacterium marinum. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2024;13:1331818.

10.3389/fcimb.2023.133181838264729PMC10803470
68

Zhang R, Varela M, Vallentgoed W, Forn-Cuni G, van der Vaart M, Meijer AH. The selective autophagy receptors optineurin and p62 are both required for zebrafish host resistance to mycobacterial infection. PLoS Pathog. 2019; 15(2):e1007329.

10.1371/journal.ppat.100732930818338PMC6413957
69

Banducci-Karp A, Xie J, Engels SAG, Sarantaris C, van Hage P, Varela M, et al. DRAM1 promotes lysosomal delivery of Mycobacterium marinum in macrophages. Cells. 2023;12(6):828.

10.3390/cells1206082836980169PMC10047064
70

Zhang R, Varela M, Forn-Cuni G, Torraca V, van der Vaart M, Meijer AH. Deficiency in the autophagy modulator Dram1 exacerbates pyroptotic cell death of Mycobacteria-infected macrophages. Cell Death Dis. 2020;11(4):277.

10.1038/s41419-020-2477-132332700PMC7181687
71

Lopez-Jimenez AT, Cardenal-Munoz E, Leuba F, Gerstenmaier L, Barisch C, Hagedorn M, et al. The ESCRT and autophagy machineries cooperate to repair ESX-1-dependent damage at the Mycobacterium-containing vacuole but have opposite impact on containing the infection. PLoS Pathog. 2018;14(12):e1007501.

10.1371/journal.ppat.100750130596802PMC6329560
72

Raykov L, Mottet M, Nitschke J, Soldati T. A TRAF-like E3 ubiquitin ligase TrafE coordinates ESCRT and autophagy in endolysosomal damage response and cell-autonomous immunity to Mycobacterium marinum. Elife. 2023;12:e85727.

10.7554/eLife.8572737070811PMC10181826
73

Pean CB, Schiebler M, Tan SW, Sharrock JA, Kierdorf K, Brown KP, et al. Regulation of phagocyte triglyceride by a STAT-ATG2 pathway controls mycobacterial infection. Nat Commun. 2017;8:14642.

10.1038/ncomms1464228262681PMC5343520
74

Kjellin J, Pranting M, Bach F, Vaid R, Edelbroek B, Li Z, et al. Investigation of the host transcriptional response to intracellular bacterial infection using Dictyostelium discoideum as a host model. BMC Genomics. 2019;20(1):961.

10.1186/s12864-019-6269-x31823727PMC6902447
75

Bah A, Lacarriere C, Vergne I. Autophagy-related proteins target ubiquitin-free mycobacterial compartment to promote killing in macrophages. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2016;6:53.

10.3389/fcimb.2016.0005327242971PMC4863073
76

Cardenal-Munoz E, Arafah S, Lopez-Jimenez AT, Kicka S, Falaise A, Bach F, et al. Mycobacterium marinum antagonistically induces an autophagic response while repressing the autophagic flux in a TORC1- and ESX-1- dependent manner. PLoS Pathog. 2017;13(4):e1006344.

10.1371/journal.ppat.100634428414774PMC5407849
77

Strong E, Hart B, Wang J, Orozco MG, Lee S. Induced synthesis of mycolactone restores the pathogenesis of Mycobacterium ulceransin vitro and in vivo. Front Immunol. 2022;13:750643.

10.3389/fimmu.2022.75064335401531PMC8988146
78

Mohanty S, Jagannathan L, Ganguli G, Padhi A, Roy D, Alaridah N, et al. A mycobacterial phosphoribosyltransferase promotes bacillary survival by inhibiting oxidative stress and autophagy pathways in macrophages and zebrafish. J Biol Chem. 2015;290(21):13321-13343.

10.1074/jbc.M114.59848225825498PMC4505583
79

Manry J, Vincent QB, Johnson C, Chrabieh M, Lorenzo L, Theodorou I, et al. Genome-wide association study of Buruli ulcer in rural Benin highlights role of two LncRNAs and the autophagy pathway. Commun Biol. 2020;3(1):177.

10.1038/s42003-020-0920-632313116PMC7171125
80

Capela C, Dossou AD, Silva-Gomes R, Sopoh GE, Makoutode M, Menino JF, et al. Genetic variation in autophagy- related genes influences the risk and phenotype of Buruli Ulcer. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2016;10(4):e0004671.

10.1371/journal.pntd.000467127128681PMC4851401
81

Park Y, Hong JW, Ahn E, Gee HY, Kang YA. PARK2 as a susceptibility factor for nontuberculous mycobacterial pulmonary disease. Respir Res. 2024;25(1):310.

10.1186/s12931-024-02946-439143598PMC11325611
82

Sato E, Imafuku S, Ishii K, Itoh R, Chou B, Soejima T, et al. Vitamin D-dependent cathelicidin inhibits Mycobacterium marinum infection in human monocytic cells. J Dermatol Sci. 2013;70(3):166-172.

10.1016/j.jdermsci.2013.01.011
83

Yuk JM, Shin DM, Lee HM, Yang CS, Jin HS, Kim KK, et al. Vitamin D3 induces autophagy in human monocytes/ macrophages via cathelicidin. Cell Host Microbe. 2009;6(3):231-243.

10.1016/j.chom.2009.08.004
84

Sharma V, Makhdoomi M, Singh L, Kumar P, Khan N, Singh S, et al. Trehalose limits opportunistic mycobacterial survival during HIV co-infection by reversing HIV-mediated autophagy block. Autophagy. 2021;17(2):476-495.

10.1080/15548627.2020.172537432079455PMC7610453
85

Kan Y, Meng L, Xie L, Liu L, Dong W, Feng J, et al. Temporal modulation of host aerobic glycolysis determines the outcome of Mycobacterium marinum infection. Fish Shellfish Immunol. 2020;96:78-85.

10.1016/j.fsi.2019.11.051
86

Kilinc G, Ottenhoff THM, Saris A. Phenothiazines boost host control of Mycobacterium avium infection in primary human macrophages. Biomed Pharmacother. 2025;185:117941.

10.1016/j.biopha.2025.117941
87

Kim YJ, Park EJ, Lee SH, Silwal P, Kim JK, Yang JS, et al. Dimethyl itaconate is effective in host-directed antimicrobial responses against mycobacterial infections through multifaceted innate immune pathways. Cell Biosci. 2023;13(1):49.

10.1186/s13578-023-00992-x36882813PMC9993662
88

You L, Wang Z, Li H, Shou J, Jing Z, Xie J, et al. The role of STAT3 in autophagy. Autophagy. 2015;11(5):729-739.

10.1080/15548627.2015.101719225951043PMC4509450
89

Sapkota A, Park EJ, Kim YJ, Heo JB, Nguyen TQ, Heo BE, et al. The autophagy-targeting compound V46 enhances antimicrobial responses to Mycobacteroides abscessus by activating transcription factor EB. Biomed Pharmacother. 2024;179:117313.

10.1016/j.biopha.2024.117313
90

Kilinc G, Boland R, Heemskerk MT, Spaink HP, Haks MC, van der Vaart M, et al. Host-directed therapy with amiodarone in preclinical models restricts mycobacterial infection and enhances autophagy. Microbiol Spectr. 2024; 12(8):e0016724.

10.1128/spectrum.00167-2438916320PMC11302041
91

Park CR, Paik S, Kim YJ, Kim JK, Jeon SM, Lee SH, et al. Rufomycin exhibits dual effects against Mycobacterium abscessus infection by inducing host defense and antimicrobial activities. Front Microbiol. 2021;12:695024.

10.3389/fmicb.2021.69502434447358PMC8383285
92

Li J, Gao J, Gao Y, Shi C, Guo X, Huang H, et al. Degarelix limits the survival of mycobacteria and granuloma formation. Microb Pathog. 2024;197:107046.

10.1016/j.micpath.2024.107046
93

Chang J, Kim J, Lee W. Raloxifene prevents intracellular invasion of pathogenic bacteria through modulation of cell metabolic pathways. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2022;77(6):1617-1624.

10.1093/jac/dkac069
94

Zheng Q, Wang Q, Wang S, Wu J, Gao Q, Liu W. Thiopeptide antibiotics exhibit a dual mode of action against intracellular pathogens by affecting both host and microbe. Chem Biol. 2015;22(8):1002-1007.

10.1016/j.chembiol.2015.06.019
95

Zullo AJ, Jurcic Smith KL, Lee S. Mammalian target of Rapamycin inhibition and mycobacterial survival are uncoupled in murine macrophages. BMC Biochem. 2014;15:4.

10.1186/1471-2091-15-424528777PMC3937017
96

Bai X, Bai A, Honda JR, Eichstaedt C, Musheyev A, Feng Z, et al. Alpha-1-antitrypsin enhances primary human macrophage immunity against non-tuberculous mycobacteria. Front Immunol. 2019;10:1417.

10.3389/fimmu.2019.0141731293581PMC6606736
97

Orosz L, Papanicolaou EG, Seprenyi G, Megyeri K. IL-17A and IL-17F induce autophagy in RAW 264.7 macrophages. Biomed Pharmacother. 2016;77:129-134.

10.1016/j.biopha.2015.12.020
98

Mediaas SD, Haug M, Louet C, Wahl SGF, Gidon A, Flo TH. Metformin improves Mycobacterium avium infection by strengthening macrophage antimicrobial functions. Front Immunol. 2024;15:1463224.

10.3389/fimmu.2024.146322439737195PMC11682992
99

Hu Y, Chen H, Zhang L, Lin X, Li X, Zhuang H, et al. The AMPK-MFN2 axis regulates MAM dynamics and autophagy induced by energy stresses. Autophagy. 2021;17(5):1142-1156.

10.1080/15548627.2020.174949032249716PMC8143230
페이지 상단으로 이동하기