Laboratory information management system for biosafety laboratory: Safety and efficiency

Laboratory information management system (LIMS) has been widely used to facilitate laboratory activities. However, the current LIMSs do not contain functions to improve the safety of laboratory work, which is the major concern of biosafety laboratories (BSLs). With tons of biosafety information that need to be managed and an increasing number of biosafety-related research projects under way, it is worthy of expanding the current framework of LIMS and building a system that is more suitable for BSL usage. Such a system should carefully trade off between the safety and efficiency of regular lab activities, allowing the laboratory staff to conduct their research as free as possible while ensuring their and the environment’s safety. In order to achieve this goal, the information on the research contents, laboratory personnel, experimental materials and experimental equipment need to be well collected and fully utilized by a centralized system and its databases

Untargeted Metabolomics Using UHPLC-HRMS Reveals Metabolic Changes of Fresh-Cut Potato during Browning Process

Surface browning plays a major role in the quality loss of fresh-cut potatoes. Untargeted metabolomics were used to understand the metabolic changes of fresh-cut potato during the browning process. Their metabolites were profiled by ultra-high performance liquid chromatography coupled with high resolution mass spectrometry (UHPLC-HRMS). Data processing and metabolite annotation were completed by Compound Discoverer 3.3 software. Statistical analysis was applied to screen the key metabolites correlating with browning process. Fifteen key metabolites responsible for the browning process were putatively identified. Moreover, after analysis of the metabolic causes of glutamic acid, linolenic acid, glutathione, adenine, 12-OPDA and AMP, we found that the browning process of fresh-cut potatoes was related to the structural dissociation of the membrane, oxidation and reduction reaction and energy shortage. This work provides a reference for further investigation into the mechanism of browning in fresh-cut products

Characterization of Traditional Chinese Sesame Oil by Using Headspace Solid-Phase Microextraction/Gas Chromatography–Mass Spectrometry, Electronic Nose, Sensory Evaluation, and RapidOxy

Xiao Mo Xiang You (XMXY) is a traditional Chinese sesame oil variety that is obtained through a hot water flotation process. This unique process gives the oil a unique aroma, health benefits, and excellent product stability. Although XMXY is always the most expensive among all the sesame oil varieties, it is usually used as a flavoring in many traditional Chinese daily food products and is increasingly popular. In order to reveal the characteristics of the oil, the volatile components, sensory evaluation, and oxidation stability of five XMXY samples were, respectively, analyzed by using headspace solid-phase microextraction/gas chromatography–mass spectrometry, an electronic nose, sensory evaluation, and RapidOxy. Comparisons and multidimensional statistical analysis were also carried out to distinguish XMXY from roasted sesame oil (RSO) and cold-pressed sesame oil (CSO) samples. In total, 69 volatiles were identified from XMXY, RSO, and CSO samples. Some compounds possessed high odor activity value (OAV > 1) in XMXY, including heterocyclic compounds, phenols, and sulfur-containing compounds. Additionally, they were also the main volatile components that distinguish XMXY from RSO and CSO. Roasted and nutty aromas were the dominant aroma attributes of XMXY. XMXY had better flavor intensity and oxidation stability than the other two sesame oil samples. These results are very valuable for the quality control and product identification of traditional Chinese sesame oil

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

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