Studies of Central American plants. by Paul C. Standley and Julian A. Steyermark.

v.23:no.5(1947)

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.

The modern study of literature; an introduction to literary theory and interpretation by Richard Green Moulton ...

Introduction: Dominant ideas of modern study: unity, induction, evolution.--book I. Literary morphology: varieties of literature and their underlying principles.--book II. The field and scope of literary study.--book III. Literary evolution as reflected in the history of world literature.--book IV. Literary criticism: the traditional confusion and the modern reconstruction.--book V. Literature as a mode of philosophy.--book VI. Literature as a mode of art. Conclusion: the traditional and the modern study of literature. Syllabus. Works of the author. General index. Seventh impression, June, 1928

The doctrine of the Greek article; applied to the criticism and the illustration of the New Testament.

Edited by J. M. Mason.

Grants in aid: a criticism and a proposal,

Mode of access: Internet.

Having a word with yourself:neural correlates of self-criticism and self-reassurance

Self-criticism is strongly correlated with a range of psychopathologies, such as depression, eating disorders and anxiety. In contrast, self-reassurance is inversely associated with such psychopathologies. Despite the importance of self-judgements and evaluations, little is known about the neurophysiology of these internal processes. The current study therefore used a novel fMRI task to investigate the neuronal correlates of self-criticism and self-reassurance. Participants were presented statements describing two types of scenario, with the instruction to either imagine being self-critical or self-reassuring in that situation. One scenario type focused on a personal setback, mistake or failure, which would elicit negative emotions, whilst the second was of a matched neutral event. Self-criticism was associated with activity in lateral prefrontal cortex (PFC) regions and dorsal anterior cingulate (dAC), therefore linking self-critical thinking to error processing and resolution, and also behavioural inhibition. Self-reassurance was associated with left temporal pole and insula activation, suggesting that efforts to be self-reassuring engage similar regions to expressing compassion and empathy towards others. Additionally, we found a dorsal/ventral PFC divide between an individual's tendency to be self-critical or self-reassuring. Using multiple regression analyses, dorsolateral PFC activity was positively correlated with high levels of self-criticism (assessed via self-report measure), suggesting greater error processing and behavioural inhibition in such individuals. Ventrolateral PFC activity was positively correlated with high self-reassurance. Our findings may have implications for the neural basis of a range of mood disorders that are characterised by a preoccupation with personal mistakes and failures, and a self-critical response to such events.