Correction: Anabolic steroids among resistance training practitioners.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0223384.]

Anabolic steroids among resistance training practitioners.

OBJECTIVE:To compare the use of anabolic steroids (AS), the motivation to use them, their side effects, the source of information and the form in which AS were obtained, the medical follow-up, and the periodic examinations in resistance training practitioners who are either current or former users of AS. METHODS:A prevalence survey was performed in the gyms of the city of Curitiba, including 719 current and former AS users who self-administered a questionnaire. The chi-square and z of proportions (p <0.05) statistical tests were conducted. RESULTS:Esthetics was the main motivation associated with AS intake, leading to satisfactory results. The information about the form in which to use AS was provided by doctors and AS were either purchased at the pharmacy with a prescription or illegally. Current users reported a higher number of cycles and doses, a longer duration of use, as well as larger economical investments into AS. This shows a higher consumption of such drugs, regardless of the medical follow-up and post-cycle therapy. CONCLUSION:Given that a change in the usage pattern was observed when increasing the AS consumption, this should be considered in the elaboration of public policies to inhibit such a trend

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