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.

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

Cell death is essential for a plethora of physiological processes, and its deregulation characterizes numerous human diseases. Thus, the in-depth investigation of cell death and its mechanisms constitutes a formidable challenge for fundamental and applied biomedical research, and has tremendous implications for the development of novel therapeutic strategies. It is, therefore, of utmost importance to standardize the experimental procedures that identify dying and dead cells in cell cultures and/or in tissues, from model organisms and/or humans, in healthy and/or pathological scenarios. Thus far, dozens of methods have been proposed to quantify cell death-related parameters. However, no guidelines exist regarding their use and interpretation, and nobody has thoroughly annotated the experimental settings for which each of these techniques is most appropriate. Here, we provide a nonexhaustive comparison of methods to detect cell death with apoptotic or nonapoptotic morphologies, their advantages and pitfalls. These guidelines are intended for investigators who study cell death, as well as for reviewers who need to constructively critique scientific reports that deal with cellular demise. Given the difficulties in determining the exact number of cells that have passed the point-of-no-return of the signaling cascades leading to cell death, we emphasize the importance of performing multiple, methodologically unrelated assays to quantify dying and dead cells.

Patterns and Correlates of Expressed Emotion, Perceived Criticism, and Rearing Style in First Admitted Early-Onset Schizophrenia Spectrum Disorders

The aim of this study was to assess patterns and correlates of family variables in 31 adolescents treated for their first episode of a schizophrenia spectrum disorder (early-onset schizophrenia [EOS]). Expressed emotion, perceived criticism, and rearing style were assessed. Potential correlates were patient psychopathology, premorbid adjustment, illness duration, quality of life (QoL), sociodemographic variables, patient and caregiver "illness concept," and caregiver personality traits and support. Families were rated as critical more frequently by patients than raters (55% vs. 13%). Perceived criticism was associated with worse QoL in relationship with parents and peers. An adverse rearing style was associated with a negative illness concept in patients, particularly with less trust in their physician. Future research should examine perceived criticism as a predictor of relapse and indicator of adolescents with EOS who need extended support and treatment. Rearing style should be carefully observed because of its link with patients' illness concept and, potentially, to service engagement and medication adherence

Endovascular treatment for acute ischemic stroke patients: implications and interpretation of IMS III, MR RESCUE, and SYNTHESIS EXPANSION trials: A report from the Working Group of International Congress of Interventional Neurology

OBJECTIVE The results of Interventional Management of Stroke (IMS) III, Magnetic Resonance and REcanalization of Stroke Clots Using Embolectomy (MR RESCUE), and SYNTHESIS EXPANSION trials are expected to affect the practice of endovascular treatment for acute ischemic stroke. The purpose of this report is to review the components of the designs and methods of these trials and to describe the influence of those components on the interpretation of trial results. METHODS A critical review of trial design and conduct of IMS III, MR RESCUE, and SYNTHESIS EXPANSION is performed with emphasis on patient selection, shortcomings in procedural aspects, and methodology of data ascertainment and analysis. The influence of each component is estimated based on published literature including multicenter clinical trials reporting on endovascular treatment for acute ischemic stroke and myocardial infarction. RESULTS We critically examined the time interval between symptom onset and treatment and rates of angiographic recanalization to differentiate between "endovascular treatment" and "parameter optimized endovascular treatment" as it relates to the IMS III, MR RESCUE, and SYNTHESIS EXPANSION trials. All the three trials failed to effectively test "parameter optimized endovascular treatment" due to the delay between symptom onset and treatment and less than optimal rates of recanalization. In all the three trials, the magnitude of benefit with endovascular treatment required to reject the null hypothesis was larger than could be expected based on previous studies. The IMS III and SYNTHESIS EXPANSION trials demonstrated that rates of symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhages subsequent to treatment are similar between IV thrombolytics and endovascular treatment in matched acute ischemic stroke patients. The trials also indirectly validated the superiority/equivalence of IV thrombolytics (compared with endovascular treatment) in patients with minor neurological deficits and those without large vessel occlusion on computed tomographic/magnetic resonance angiography. CONCLUSIONS The results do not support a large magnitude benefit of endovascular treatment in subjects randomized in all the three trials. The possibility that benefits of a smaller magnitude exist in certain patient populations cannot be excluded. Large magnitude benefits can be expected with implementation of "parameter optimized endovascular treatment" in patients with ischemic stroke who are candidates for IV thrombolytics.

Recommendations for sex/gender neuroimaging research: Key principles and implications for research design, analysis and interpretation

Neuroimaging (NI) technologies are having increasing impact in the study of complex cognitive and social processes. In this emerging field of social cognitive neuroscience, a central goal should be to increase the understanding of the interaction between the neurobiology of the individual and the environment in which humans develop and function. The study of sex/gender is often a focus for NI research, and may be motivated by a desire to better understand general developmental principles, mental health problems that show female-male disparities, and gendered differences in society. In order to ensure the maximum possible contribution of NI research to these goals, we draw attention to four key principles—overlap, mosaicism, contingency and entanglement—that have emerged from sex/gender research and that should inform NI research design, analysis and interpretation. We discuss the implications of these principles in the form of constructive guidelines and suggestions for researchers, editors, reviewers and science communicators.

OSIRIS observations of meter-sized exposures of H2O ice at the surface of 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko and interpretation using laboratory experiments

Since OSIRIS started acquiring high-resolution observations of the surface of the nucleus of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko, over one hundred meter-sized bright spots have been identified in numerous types of geomorphologic regions, but mostly located in areas receiving low insolation. The bright spots are either clustered, in debris fields close to decameter-high cliffs, or isolated without structural relation to the surrounding terrain. They can be up to ten times brighter than the average surface of the comet at visible wavelengths and display a significantly bluer spectrum. They do not exhibit significant changes over a period of a few weeks. All these observations are consistent with exposure of water ice at the surface of boulders produced by dislocation of the weakly consolidated layers that cover large areas of the nucleus. Laboratory experiments show that under simulated comet surface conditions, analog samples acquire a vertical stratification with an uppermost porous mantle of refractory dust overlaying a layer of hard ice formed by recondensation or sintering under the insulating dust mantle. The evolution of the visible spectrophotometric properties of samples during sublimation is consistent with the contrasts of brightness and color seen at the surface of the nucleus. Clustered bright spots are formed by the collapse of overhangs that is triggered by mass wasting of deeper layers. Isolated spots might be the result of the emission of boulders at low velocity that are redepositioned in other regions.

[CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials (Chinese version)]

Overwhelming evidence shows the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal. Without transparent reporting, readers cannot judge the reliability and validity of trial findings nor extract information for systematic reviews. Recent methodological analyses indicate that inadequate reporting and design are associated with biased estimates of treatment effects. Such systematic error is seriously damaging to RCTs, which are considered the gold standard for evaluating interventions because of their ability to minimise or avoid bias. A group of scientists and editors developed the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to improve the quality of reporting of RCTs. It was first published in 1996 and updated in 2001. The statement consists of a checklist and flow diagram that authors can use for reporting an RCT. Many leading medical journals and major international editorial groups have endorsed the CONSORT statement. The statement facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of RCTs. During the 2001 CONSORT revision, it became clear that explanation and elaboration of the principles underlying the CONSORT statement would help investigators and others to write or appraise trial reports. A CONSORT explanation and elaboration article was published in 2001 alongside the 2001 version of the CONSORT statement. After an expert meeting in January 2007, the CONSORT statement has been further revised and is published as the CONSORT 2010 Statement. This update improves the wording and clarity of the previous checklist and incorporates recommendations related to topics that have only recently received recognition, such as selective outcome reporting bias. This explanatory and elaboration document-intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the CONSORT statement-has also been extensively revised. It presents the meaning and rationale for each new and updated checklist item providing examples of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies. Several examples of flow diagrams are included. The CONSORT 2010 Statement, this revised explanatory and elaboration document, and the associated website (www.consort-statement.org) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of randomised trials.