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

Comparative efficacy of low-dose versus standard-dose azithromycin for patients with yaws: a randomised non-inferiority trial in Ghana and Papua New Guinea

Summary: Background: A dose of 30 mg/kg of azithromycin is recommended for treatment of yaws, a disease targeted for global eradication. Treatment with 20 mg/kg of azithromycin is recommended for the elimination of trachoma as a public health problem. In some settings, these diseases are co-endemic. We aimed to determine the efficacy of 20 mg/kg of azithromycin compared with 30 mg/kg azithromycin for the treatment of active and latent yaws. Methods: We did a non-inferiority, open-label, randomised controlled trial in children aged 6–15 years who were recruited from schools in Ghana and schools and the community in Papua New Guinea. Participants were enrolled based on the presence of a clinical lesion that was consistent with infectious primary or secondary yaws and a positive rapid diagnostic test for treponemal and non-treponemal antibodies. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either standard-dose (30 mg/kg) or low-dose (20 mg/kg) azithromycin by a computer-generated random number sequence. Health-care workers assessing clinical outcomes in the field were not blinded to the patient's treatment, but investigators involved in statistical or laboratory analyses and the participants were blinded to treatment group. We followed up participants at 4 weeks and 6 months. The primary outcome was cure at 6 months, defined as lesion healing at 4 weeks in patients with active yaws and at least a four-fold decrease in rapid plasma reagin titre from baseline to 6 months in patients with active and latent yaws. Active yaws was defined as a skin lesion that was positive for Treponema pallidum ssp pertenue in PCR testing. We used a non-inferiority margin of 10%. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02344628. Findings: Between June 12, 2015, and July 2, 2016, 583 (65·1%) of 895 children screened were enrolled; 292 patients were assigned a low dose of azithromycin and 291 patients were assigned a standard dose of azithromycin. 191 participants had active yaws and 392 had presumed latent yaws. Complete follow-up to 6 months was available for 157 (82·2%) of 191 patients with active yaws. In cases of active yaws, cure was achieved in 61 (80·3%) of 76 patients in the low-dose group and in 68 (84·0%) of 81 patients in the standard-dose group (difference 3·7%; 95% CI −8·4 to 15·7%; this result did not meet the non-inferiority criterion). There were no serious adverse events reported in response to treatment in either group. The most commonly reported adverse event at 4 weeks was gastrointestinal upset, with eight (2·7%) participants in each group reporting this symptom. Interpretation: In this study, low-dose azithromycin did not meet the prespecified non-inferiority margin compared with standard-dose azithromycin in achieving clinical and serological cure in PCR-confirmed active yaws. Only a single participant (with presumed latent yaws) had definitive serological failure. This work suggests that 20 mg/kg of azithromycin is probably effective against yaws, but further data are needed. Funding: Coalition for Operational Research on Neglected Tropical Diseases

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 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