Definition of Anatomical Planes for Use in Transvaginal Sonography

Planes frequently used to identify radiologic and abdominal ultrasono‐graphic images such as transverse, coronal, and sagittal are generally not anatomically correct when applied to transvaginal ultrasonographic planes and images. More appropriate terminology specific for the planes imaged during transvaginal ultra‐sonography, such as TRANS‐pelvic and AP‐pelvic planes, are suggested. A TRANS‐pelvic plane refers to a plane imaged when the sound beam is directed across or from side to side in the pelvis. An AP‐pelvic plane refers to an image obtained when the sound beam is directed anteriorly and posteriorly

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy in higher eukaryotes

PMCID: PMC2654259 NIHMSID: NIHMS96070Research in autophagy continues to accelerate,1 and as a result many new scientists are entering the field. Accordingly, it is important to establish a standard set of criteria for monitoring macroautophagy in different organisms. Recent reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose.2,3 There are many useful and convenient methods that can be used to monitor macroautophagy in yeast, but relatively few in other model systems, and there is much confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure macroautophagy in higher eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers of autophagosomes versus those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway; thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from fully functional autophagy that includes delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of the methods that can be used by investigators who are attempting to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as by reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that investigate these processes. This set of guidelines is 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 verify an autophagic response.The authors of this manuscript support the guidelines described herein. We thank Heather Pua (Duke University Medical Center) and Drs. Daniel Rigden (University of Liverpool) and David Russell (Cornell University College of Veterinary Medicine) for reading the manuscript and providing helpful comments. D.J.K. extends his sincere apologies to researchers in the field of autophagy who, due to oversight or any other reason, could not be included on this manuscript. This work was supported by National Institutes of Health Public Health Service grant GM53396 to D.J.K. Due to space and other limitations, it is not possible to include all other sources of financial support.Peer reviewe