To Live is to Die: The Effect of Mortality Salience on Memory and Fear of Death

Terror Management Theory proposes that the threat of death produces existential terror, which accentuates the need for security. This effect of mortality salience awareness of death-is well documented for non-conscious thoughts of death (Martens, Burke, Schimel, & Faucher, 2011). The objective of this study, then, is to measure anxiety-or fear of death-in reaction to non-conscious as well as conscious thoughts of death by manipulating the valence (positive vs. negative) and content (death vs. non-death) of a story that participants read. I measured any changes reported in fear of death before and after reading the story. Participants also wrote about their first realization of death after making their second fear-of-death rating. Next, they completed the fear-of-death questionnaire a third time. Lastly, participants completed a recognition test after the third questionnaire, measuring their memory for the story read earlier in the study. This assessed whether mortality salience had an effect on memory (Greenberg, Martens, Jonas, Eisenstadt, Pyszczynski, & Solomon, 2003). Seventy-one undergraduate students participated in the study. There was not a significant effect of mortality salience on memory; however, results showed a significant decrease in fear of death after participants wrote about their first realization of death as well as a marginally significant effect of content such that participants in the non-death conditions had higher fear of death ratings than participants in the death conditions. Mortality salience, in the form of an explicit. personal reflection on death, significantly decreased fear of death. This suggests that mere awareness of death may not incite anxiety; instead, mere exposure to and reflection on death reduces fear, or anxiety. These results are inconsistent with Terror Management Theory, and their implications are explored

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 autophagy in higher eukaryotes

Research in autophagy continues to accelerate, 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. 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 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