Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)1.

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

Highly efficient on-chip direct electronic–plasmonic transducers

10.1038/s41566-017-0003-51110623-62

The intersectionality of gender and poverty on symptom suffering among adolescents with cancer

BACKGROUND: To determine if the intersectionality of gender and poverty is associated with health disparities among adolescents with cancer. We hypothesized unobserved latent classes of patients exist with respect to cancer-related symptoms; and class classification varies by gender–poverty combinations. PROCEDURE: Cross-sectional data were collected among adolescents with cancer and families (N = 126 dyads) at four tertiary pediatric hospitals. Adolescents were aged 14–21 years, English speaking, cancer diagnosis, not developmentally delayed, psychotic, homicidal, suicidal, or severely depressed. Latent class analysis and multinomial logit models were used for analysis. Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) pediatric symptom measures, Short forms, evaluated anxiety, depressive symptoms, pain interference, and fatigue. Family-reported household income used 2016 Federal Poverty Level (FPL) guidelines. RESULTS: Three distinct groups of patients were identified using PROMIS symptom patterns: High Distress-25%; High Physical/Low Psychological Distress-14%; and Low Distress-62%. Female adolescents living in households with incomes at or below the 2016 FPL had 30 times the odds of being classified in the High Distress class (higher probabilities of experiencing anxiety, depressive symptoms, pain interference, and fatigue) compared to those in the High Physical/Low Psychological Distress class (female and poverty: AOR = 30.27, 95% CI 1.23, 735.10), and this was statistically significant (β = 3.41, 95% CI 0.21, 6.60; p = .04) but not compared to those in Low Distress. CONCLUSION: Adolescent females with cancer with households in poverty had significantly greater odds of experiencing high symptom distress, compared to those with high physical but low psychological distress. More comprehensive screening and intervention, as needed, may decrease disparities