Lower urinary tract symptoms in patients with inflammatory bowel diseases: A cross-sectional observational study

Background: Inflammatory Bowel Diseases (IBD), Crohn's Disease (CD), and Ulcerative Colitis (UC) may have extraintestinal manifestations, including disorders of the urinary tract. The prevalence of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in IBD patients remains unclear. Aims: Assess the prevalence of LUTS in patients with CD or UC, evaluate the variables implicated in any difference in LUTS prevalence between CD or UC, and assess any relationship between disease activity and LUTS METHODS: LUTS were evaluated in 301 IBD patients through standardised questionnaires: Bristol Female Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms (BFLUTS), NIH-Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index (NIH-CPSI), and International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS). IBD activity was determined through the Crohn's Disease Activity Index (CDAI), Partial Mayo Score (PMS), and Total Mayo Score (TMS). Results: BFLUTS total score for females was 6 (3-11). Patients with a higher age at diagnosis had worse filling symptoms (p = 0.049) and a worse quality of life (p = 0.005). In males, 67.1% had mild, 28.5% moderate, and 4.4% severe IPSS symptom grades. The overall NIHCPSI prevalence of chronic prostatitis-like symptoms was 26.8%. The questionnaires revealed some significant differences in the subgroups analysed. Conclusion: LUTS should be evaluated in IBD patients by urologic-validated questionnaires for prompt diagnosis and early treatment

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

Erratum to: Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition) (Autophagy, 12, 1, 1-222, 10.1080/15548627.2015.1100356

non present