Internationaler Zivilprozess 2011, Zusammenspiel des revLugÜ mit dem revSchKG und der schweizerischen ZPO, mit Beiträgen von Prof. Dr. Jürgen Brönnimann, Prof. Dr. Felix Dasser, Prof. Dr. Alexander R. Markus, Prof. Dr. Rodrigo Rodriguez, Prof. Dr. Daniel Staehelin, Prof. Dr. Walter A. Stoffel

Am 10. September 2010 fand in Bern die erste Schweizerische Tagung für Zivilverfahrensrecht des Instituts für Internationales Privatrecht und Verfahrensrecht der Universität Bern statt. Die Tagung mit dem Titel "Internationaler Zivilprozess 2011" befasste sich mit dem Zusammenspiel der am 1.1.2011 in Kraft tretenden neuen oder revidierten Erlasse (ZPO, revLugÜ, und revSchKG) im Rahmen des internationalen Zivilprozesses. Der Tagungsband enthält auf den Tagungsvorträgen basierende Beiträge namhafter Autoren zu aktuellen und praxisrelevanten Themen des neuen internationalen Zivilprozesses, namentlich zum neuen Arrestrecht, zur Behandlung von Zustellungsmängeln unter dem revLugÜ, zum Zahlungsbefehl im Lichte der revLugÜ-Zuständigkeiten, zur vollstreckbaren öffentliche Urkunde sowie zur Rechtshängigkeit und zur Streitgenossenschaft im internationalen Verhältnis. Der Tagungsband "Internationaler Zivilprozess 2011" eröffnet eine neue Schriftenreihe zum Internationalen Privatrecht und Verfahrensrecht.

Vorsorglicher Rechtsschutz. Vorsorgliche Massnahmen im internationalen Kontext, offene Fragen im neuen Arrestrecht und Sicherungsmassnahmen der ZPO, mit Beiträgen von Dr. Isabelle Chabloz, Dr. Richard Gassmann, PD Dr. Pascal Grolimund, Dr. Jürg Roth, Prof. Dr. Daniel Staehelin

Am 9. September 2011 führte das Institut für Verfahrensrecht und Internationales Privatrecht (CIVPRO) der Universität Bern in bewährter Zusammenarbeit mit der schweizerischen SchKG-Vereinigung die zweite Schweizer Tagung für Internationales Zivilverfahrensrecht durch. Im Mittelpunkt der Tagung standen vorsorgliche Massnahmen im internationalen Kontext vor dem Hintergrund der neuesten Entwicklungen, namentlich (aber nicht nur) des neuen Lugano-Übereinkommens. Der Tagungsband enthält die auf den Vorträgen basierenden, überarbeiteten und erweiterten Beiträge namhafter Autorinnen und Autoren zum vorsorglichen Rechtsschutz im neuen IZPR (Pascal Grolimund). Besondere Aufmerksamkeit gilt dem neuen Arrestrecht sowohl im als auch ausserhalb des Anwendungsbereichs des Lugano-Übereinkommens (Richard Gassmann und Jürg Roth). Ebenso enthält der Band Beiträge zu den Sicherungsmassnahmen in der Realvollstreckung (Daniel Staehelin) sowie zur Anerkennung ausländischer vorsorglicher Massnahmen (Isabelle Chabloz).

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are 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 monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field.

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.