Lichenometric dating (lichenometry) and the biology of the lichen genus rhizocarpon:challenges and future directions

Lichenometric dating (lichenometry) involves the use of lichen measurements to estimate the age of exposure of various substrata. Because of low radial growth rates and considerable longevity, species of the crustose lichen genus Rhizocarpon have been the most useful in lichenometry. The primary assumption of lichenometry is that colonization, growth and mortality of Rhizocarpon are similar on surfaces of known and unknown age so that the largest thalli present on the respective faces are of comparable age. This review describes the current state of knowledge regarding the biology of Rhizocarpon and considers two main questions: (1) to what extent does existing knowledge support this assumption; and (2) what further biological observations would be useful both to test its validity and to improve the accuracy of lichenometric dates? A review of the Rhizocarpon literature identified gaps in knowledge regarding early development, the growth rate/size curve, mortality, regeneration, competitive effects, colonization, and succession on rock surfaces. The data suggest that these processes may not be comparable on different rock surfaces, especially in regions where growth rates and thallus turnover are high. In addition, several variables could differ between rock surfaces and influence maximum thallus size, including rate and timing of colonization, radial growth rates, environmental differences, thallus fusion, allelopathy, thallus mortality, colonization and competition. Comparative measurements of these variables on surfaces of known and unknown age may help to determine whether the basic assumptions of lichenometry are valid. Ultimately, it may be possible to take these differences into account when interpreting estimated dates

Synthesis, Ni(II) Schiff base complexation and structural analysis of fluorinated analogs of the ligand (S)-2-[N-(N′-benzylprolyl)amino]benzophenone (BPB)

Herein we report the first X-ray crystal structure of the well-known (S)-l-ala-Ni-BPB complex (1) and compare this with the X-ray crystal structures obtained for two novel fluorinated (S)-l-ala-Ni-BPB complexes (8 and 12) that contain either an S- or R-fluorine atom on the proline ring of the BPB ligand. The preparation of complexes 8 and 12 has been enabled by the synthesis of two new fluorinated BPB ligands (7 and 11). In this work we looked to observe the structural effects that the introduction of a single fluorine atom had on the known complex 1. Arising from this, we highlight a novel fluorine–nickel interaction that on the basis of DFT calculations appears to provide additional stabilization to one of the complexes prepared ((S)-l-ala-Ni-BPB complex 8)

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