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

Monismo y dualismo: Apuntes de jurisprudencia sobre el control constitucional de los tratados en Colombia

Entre las principales teorías del derecho internacional encontramos el dualismo y el monismo. La primera, entiende el derecho interno (nacional) y el derecho internacional como dos sistemas jurídicos que coexisten de manera separada, por lo que no se relacionan entre sí. Por otro lado, el monismo parte de la idea que los sistemas se cruzan. Al hacer parte de un mismo sistema, hay dos variantes de esta teoría. El monismo moderado con primacía del derecho internacional considera que este es superior que el derecho nacional. Por otro lado, el monismo moderado interno plantea lo opuesto. Cuales quiera que sea la teoría monista adoptada, busca que el "inferior" se adecue a sus principios. A partir del estudio del fenómeno de control constitucional en Colombia se evidencia la aplicación de las distintas teorías. En ese sentido, la obligatoriedad y eficacia del derecho internacional es cuestionada al ser contrastado con el derecho interno, particularmente con la Constitución de 1991. En Colombia, los tratados son incorporados mediante las leyes. Gracias al artículo 241 de la Constitución, la Corte Constitucional está facultada para analizar las leyes aprobatorias de tratado y contrastarlos con la Constitución. Aunque hoy en día el control constitucional es posterior a la ley aprobatoria y previo a que el ejecutivo ratifique un tratado, en los orígenes de esta figura surgió la polémica de los tratados con inconstitucionalidad sobreviniente. En ese sentido, los compromisos internacionales adoptados por Colombia antes del 91 pueden ser contrarios a la Constitución. Tal situación pone en entre dicho el principio de pacta sunt servanda. Sin embargo, como se estudiará a continuación, han sido diversos escenarios en los cuales se estudió la constitucionalidad de los tratados internacionales variando entre el dualismo y el monismo moderado. Con eso presente, en este documento, encontrarán nueve sentencias hito de control constitucional de los tratados. En cada una de ellas se analizará cómo llego la norma a ser estudiada por la Corte, los argumentos para su inconstitucionalidad, las consideraciones de la Corte, la teoría que aplicó y un breve comentario sobre la decisión y sus implicaciones

Constituciones latinoamericanas 2022. Reporte de cláusulas de control constitucional difuso y concentrado

El reporte 2022 realizado por los estudiantes del curso “constitución, convencionalidad y derecho internacional” del pregrado en Derecho de la Facultad de Jurisprudencia de la Universidad del Rosario, presenta el estudio de las formas de control constitucional, a través de las cláusulas constitucionales de veintiséis (26) países de América Latina, especialmente en lo que respecta a su cláusula de supremacía constitucional; seguido de un ejemplo analizado de una cláusula en su correspondiente constitución que desarrolle la noción de “control difuso y abstracto” y “control concreto y concentrado”

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

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

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

International audienceIn 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