[Urine analyses for workup of kidney stone disease--interpretation and therapeutic consequences]

Nephrolithiasis is a disease with a high and even rising incidence. It has a high morbidity, generates high costs and has a high recurrence rate. Urinalysis is of importance especially in recurrent stone formers. It allows the identification and quantification of risk factors and the establishment of individual risk profiles. Based on these individual risk profiles, rational therapy for metaphylaxis of kidney stones lowers stone recurrence rates significantly. This review article aims to give a focussed overview of the most important risk factors for kidney stones and reasonable urine tests for evaluation of recurrent kidney stone formers.

Contrast enhanced ultrasound eases interpretation of an unclear renal tumor in addition to CT, MRI and histological findings--a case report in a young patient

Renal cancer represents accounts for approximately 3% of all adult malignancies with a rising incidence. Incidental diagnosis is mostly based upon ultrasound (US). US and Computed tomography (CT) are the standard imaging modalities for detecting renal cell cancer (RCC). Differentiation between malignant and benign renal tumors is of utmost importance. Contrast enhanced ultrasound (CUS) seems to be a promising new diagnostic option for diagnosis and preoperative treatment planning for patients with renal cancer. It is an additional examination to baseline ultrasound and CT. We report a case of a 37-year-old woman with a papillary renal cell cancer in which CUS helped to differentiate dignity of the tumor. CUS is an additional examination to baseline ultrasound and CT. It is a less invasive technique than contrast enhanced CT and shows even slight tumor blood flow. In addition it may allow a more rapid diagnosis, because of its bedside availability.

Size matters: saccades during scene perception

We investigated the effect of image size on saccade amplitudes. First, in a meta-analysis, relevant results from previous scene perception studies are summarised, suggesting the possibility of a linear relationship between mean saccade amplitude and image size. Forty-eight observers viewed 96 colour scene images scaled to four different sizes, while their eye movements were recorded. Mean and median saccade amplitudes were found to be directly proportional to image size, while the mode of the distribution lay in the range of very short saccades. However, saccade amplitudes expressed as percentages of image size were not constant over the different image sizes; on smaller stimulus images, the relative saccades were found to be larger, and vice versa. In sum, and as far as mean and median saccade amplitudes are concerned, the size of stimulus images is the dominant factor. Other factors, such as image properties, viewing task, or measurement equipment, are only of subordinate importance. Thus, the role of stimulus size has to be reconsidered, in theoretical as well as methodological terms.

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy in higher eukaryotes

Research in autophagy continues to accelerate,(1) and as a result many new scientists are entering the field. Accordingly, it is important to establish a standard set of criteria for monitoring macroautophagy in different organisms. Recent reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose.(2,3) There are many useful and convenient methods that can be used to monitor macroautophagy in yeast, but relatively few in other model systems, and there is much confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure macroautophagy in higher eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers of autophagosomes versus those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway; thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from fully functional autophagy that includes delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of the methods that can be used by investigators who are attempting to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as by reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that investigate these processes. This set of guidelines is not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to verify an autophagic response.