CAMBIO DE COBERTURA Y USO DEL SUELO EN LA CUENCA DEL RIO MOLOLOA, NAYARIT

Los cambios de cobertura y uso del suelo se han reconocido en muchos países como una de las principales causas de deterioro ambiental, por ello están ubicados en el centro de la investigación ambiental y representan un punto importante en diferentes ámbitos como medio para entender los mecanismos de este proceso de deterioro y guía para la toma razo- nable de decisiones sobre el uso del territorio. En el estado de Nayarit, la cuenca del río Mo- loloa ha proveído de un conjunto de bienes y servicios a las localidades que involucra; des- afortunadamente, esta relación ha repercutido en un deterioro acelerado de sus recursos na- turales. En este trabajo se analizan los cambios de cobertura y uso del suelo en la cuenca del río Mololoa, entre 1995 y 2005, a partir de la interpretación de ortofotos digitales y manejo de la información en un SIG. Los resultados muestran que el paisaje de la cuenca está dominado en 83.01% por la vegetación natural y tierras de cultivo. La dinámica de cambio está centrada en los tipos de cobertura “vegetación natural” y “construcciones”, la primera disminuye a una tasa de 41.67 ha/año, y la segunda, aumenta 74.86 ha/año. La tasa de deforestación de los bosques y selvas de la región fue de 0.1 y 0.36%, menor a las reportadas por diferentes autores a nivel nacional y estatal

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

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