Probability Integrals of the Multivariate "t" Distribution

Results on probability integrals of multivariate "t" distributions are reviewed. The results discussed include: Dunnett and Sobel's probability integrals, Gupta and Sobel's probability integrals, John's probability integrals, Amos and Bulgren's probability integrals, Steffens' non-central probabilities, Dutt's probability integrals, Amos' probability integral, Fujikoshi's probability integrals, probabilities of cone, probabilities of convex polyhedra, probabilities of linear inequalities, maximum probability content, and Monte Carlo evaluation. Copyright 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation (c) 2007 International Statistical Institute.

Two Splice Variants of Nopp140 in Drosophila melanogaster

The Nopp140 gene of Drosophila maps within 79A5 of chromosome 3. Alternative splicing yields two variants. DmNopp140 (654 residues) is the sequence homolog of vertebrate Nopp140. Its carboxy terminus is 64% identical to that of the prototypical rat Nopp140. DmNopp140-RGG (688 residues) is identical to DmNopp140 throughout its first 551 residues, but its carboxy terminus contains a glycine/arginine-rich domain that is often found in RNA-binding proteins such as vertebrate nucleolin. Both Drosophila variants localize to nucleoli in Drosophila Schneider II cells and Xenopus oocytes, specifically within the dense fibrillar components. In HeLa cells, DmNopp140-RGG localizes to intact nucleoli, whereas DmNopp140 partitions HeLa nucleoli into phase-light and phase-dark regions. The phase-light regions contain DmNopp140 and endogenous fibrillarin, whereas the phase-dark regions contain endogenous nucleolin. When coexpressed, both Drosophila variants colocalize to HeLa cell nucleoli. Both variants fail to localize to endogenous Cajal bodies in Xenopus oocyte nuclei and in HeLa cell nuclei. Endogenous HeLa coilin, however, accumulates around the periphery of phase-light regions in cells expressing DmNopp140. The carboxy truncation (DmNopp140ΔRGG) also fails to localize to Cajal bodies, but it forms similar phase-light regions that peripherally accumulate endogenous coilin. Conversely, we see no unusual accumulation of coilin in cells expressing DmNopp140-RGG

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. © 2012 Landes Bioscience