Adaptation of the pepino (Solanum muricatum Ait) in Spain

The pepino (Solanum muricatum Ait.) is currently under evaluation as a new promising fruit crop in some countries such as New Zealand, Australia, Italy S.M. is vegetatively propagated. We are trying to exploit the genetic variability generated by sexual reproduction to obtain clones of pepino adapted to our climatic and agricultural conditions. Two field experiments were carried out in the Northwest of Spain in order to obtain knowledge about some agronomic traits of the pepino. A strong environmental influence was found in all traits. Some of the plants obtained from seed were parthenocarpics. Parthenocarpy could be important for the adaptation of this crop to less favourables conditionsPeer reviewe

Amélioration des qualités culinaire et nutritionnelle du haricot commun (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) cultivé en association avec le maïs (Zea mays L.)

[EN] Common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) is widely intercropped with maize (Zea mays L.) in the North of Spain. Breeding beans for multiple cropping systems is important for the development of a productive and sustainable agriculture, and is mainly oriented to minimize intercrop competition and to stabilize complementarity with maize. Most agricultural research on intercropping to date has focused on the agronomic and overall yield effects of the different species, but characters related with socio-economic and food quality aspects are also important. The effect of intercropping beans with maize on food seed quality traits was studied for thirty-five bush bean varieties under different environments in Galicia (Northwestern Spain). Parameters determining Asturian (Northern Spain) white bean commercial and culinary quality have also been evaluated in fifteen accessions. There are significant differences between varieties in the selected cropping systems (sole crop, intercrop with field maize and intercrop with sweet maize) for dry and soaked seed weight, coat proportion, crude protein, crude fat and moisture. Different white bean accessions have been chosen according to their culinary quality. Under these environmental conditions it appears that intercropping systems with sweet maize give higher returns than sole cropping system. It is also suggested that the culinary and nutritional quality potential of some white bean accessions could be the base material in a breeding programme the objectives of which are to develop varieties giving seeds with high food quality.[FR] Le haricot commun (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) est habituellement cultivé en association avec le maïs (Zea mays L.) dans le nord de l’Espagne. L’amélioration des haricots en vue de leur utilisation dans différents systèmes culturaux est importante pour le développement d’une agriculture productive et durable, et est principalement orientée vers une diminution de la compétition entre cultures assurant une complémentarité plus stable avec le maïs. La plupart des recherches actuellement menées dans ce domaine se sont focalisées sur les effets agronomiques et le rendement global des différentes espèces, mais les caractères en relation avec les aspect socio-economiques et la qualité sont aussi importants. L’influence de l’association du haricot avec le maïs sur la qualité alimentaire des graines a été étudiée sur 35 variétés de haricot nain dans différents environnements en Galicie. Les paramètres déterminant la qualité commerciale et alimentaire d’une variété de haricot blanc ont également été évalués sur 15 introductions. Dans les systèmes culturaux choisis (culture pure, association avec le maïs grains, association avec le maïs doux), seules des différences significatives ont été mises en évidence pour les poids des grains secs et trempés, la proportion des téguments, les teneurs en eau, protéines et matières grasses. Différentes introductions de haricot blanc on été choisies pour la qualité alimentaire. Les résultats suggèrent que, sous les conditions culturales testées, l’association avec le maïs doux serait plus rentable économiquement que la culture pure, et que le potentiel des qualités culinaire et nutritionnelle de certaines introductions de haricot blanc pourrait servir de matériel dans un programme d’amélioration afin d’obtenir des variétés avec une bonne qualité alimentaire des grains.This study was made possible through two grants from Xunta de Galicia and Diputación de Pontevedra (Spain) to M. Santalla and AP. Rodiño, respectively. Research was supported by the CICYT project AGR90-0822 from the Spanish Government and the University of Santiago de Compostela (Spain). The authors thank the Centro de Investigaciones Agrarias de Mabegondo (La Coruña, Spain) for their collaboration in the present work, and the Centro de Recursos Fitogeneticos (Ministry of Agriculture, Madrid, Spain) for supplying some of the studied bean varieties.Xunta de GaliciaDiputación Provincial de PontevedraCICYTUSCPeer reviewe

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

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

Erratum to: Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition) (Autophagy, 12, 1, 1-222, 10.1080/15548627.2015.1100356

non present

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