Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)1.

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field

Rarity and incomplete sampling in DNA-based species delimitation

DNA-based species delimitation may be compromised by limited sampling effort and species rarity, including “singleton” representatives of species, which hampers estimates of intra- versus interspecies evolutionary processes. In a case study of southern African chafers (beetles in the family Scarabaeidae), many species and subclades were poorly represented and 48.5% of species were singletons. Using cox1 sequences from >500 specimens and ∼100 species, the Generalized Mixed Yule Coalescent (GMYC) analysis as well as various other approaches for DNA-based species delimitation (Automatic Barcode Gap Discovery (ABGD), Poisson tree processes (PTP), Species Identifier, Statistical Parsimony), frequently produced poor results if analyzing a narrow target group only, but the performance improved when several subclades were combined. Hence, low sampling may be compensated for by “clade addition” of lineages outside of the focal group. Similar findings were obtained in reanalysis of published data sets of taxonomically poorly known species assemblages of insects from Madagascar. The low performance of undersampled trees is not due to high proportions of singletons per se, as shown in simulations (with 13%, 40% and 52% singletons). However, the GMYC method was highly sensitive to variable effective population size (NeNe), which was exacerbated by variable species abundances in the simulations. Hence, low sampling success and rarity of species affect the power of the GMYC method only if they reflect great differences in NeNe among species. Potential negative effects of skewed species abundances and prevalence of singletons are ultimately an issue about the variation in NeNe and the degree to which this is correlated with the census population size and sampling success. Clade addition beyond a limited study group can overcome poor sampling for the GMYC method in particular under variable NeNe. This effect was less pronounced for methods of species delimitation not based on coalescent models

Chorea-acanthocytosis: genetic linkage to chromosome 9q21

Chorea-acanthocytosis (CHAC) is a rare autosomal recessive disorder characterized by progressive neurodegeneration and unusual red-cell morphology (acanthocytosis), with onset in the third to fifth decade of life. Neurological impairment with acanthocytosis (neuroacanthocytosis) also is seen in abetalipoproteinemia and X-linked McLeod syndrome. Whereas the molecular etiology of McLeod syndrome has been defined (Ho et al. 1994), that of CHAC is still unknown. In the absence of cytogenetic rearrangements, we initiated a genomewide scan for linkage in 11 families, segregating for CHAC, who are of diverse geographical origin. We report here that the disease is linked, in all families, to a 6-cM region of chromosome 9q21 that is flanked by the recombinant markers GATA89a11 and D9S1843. A maximum two-point LOD score of 7.1 (\u398 = .00) for D9S1867 was achieved, and the linked region has been confirmed by homozygosity-by-descent, in offspring from inbred families. These findings provide strong evidence for the involvement of a single locus for CHAC and are the first step in positional cloning of the disease gene