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

The International Network for Evaluating Outcomes (iNeo) of neonates: evolution, progress and opportunities

Neonates born very preterm (before 32 weeks’ gestational age), are a significant public health concern because of their high-risk of mortality and life-long disability. In addition, caring for very preterm neonates can be expensive, both during their initial hospitalization and their long-term cost of permanent impairments. To address these issues, national and regional neonatal networks around the world collect and analyse data from their constituents to identify trends in outcomes, and conduct benchmarking, audit and research. Improving neonatal outcomes and reducing health care costs is a global problem that can be addressed using collaborative approaches to assess practice variation between countries, conduct research and implement evidence-based practices. The International Network for Evaluating Outcomes (iNeo) of neonates was established in 2013 with the goal of improving outcomes for very preterm neonates through international collaboration and comparisons. To date, 10 national or regional population-based neonatal networks/datasets participate in iNeo collaboration. The initiative now includes data on >200,000 very preterm neonates and has conducted important epidemiological studies evaluating outcomes, variations and trends. The collaboration has also surveyed >320 neonatal units worldwide to learn about variations in practices, healthcare service delivery, and physical, environmental and manpower related factors and support services for parents. The iNeo collaboration serves as a strong international platform for Neonatal-Perinatal health services research that facilitates international data sharing, capacity building, and global efforts to improve very preterm neonate care

Development of the CMS detector for the CERN LHC Run 3

A preprint version of this article is available at arXiv:2309.05466v1 [physics.ins-det], https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.05466v1 . Comments: Submitted to the Journal of Instrumentation. All figures and tables can be found at https://cms-results.web.cern.ch/cms-results/public-results/publications/PRF-21-001 (CMS Public Pages). Report number: CMS-PRF-21-001, CERN-EP-2023-136.Since the initial data taking of the CERN LHC, the CMS experiment has undergone substantial upgrades and improvements. This paper discusses the CMS detector as it is configured for the third data-taking period of the CERN LHC, Run 3, which started in 2022. The entire silicon pixel tracking detector was replaced. A new powering system for the superconducting solenoid was installed. The electronics of the hadron calorimeter was upgraded. All the muon electronic systems were upgraded, and new muon detector stations were added, including a gas electron multiplier detector. The precision proton spectrometer was upgraded. The dedicated luminosity detectors and the beam loss monitor were refurbished. Substantial improvements to the trigger, data acquisition, software, and computing systems were also implemented, including a new hybrid CPU/GPU farm for the high-level trigger.SCOAP3

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