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

GPS code phase variations (CPV) for GNSS receiver antennas and their effect on geodetic parameters and ambiguity resolution

Precise navigation and geodetic coordinate determination rely on accurate GNSS signal reception. Thus, the receiver antenna properties play a crucial role in the GNSS error budget. For carrier phase observations, a spherical radiation pattern represents an ideal receiver antenna behaviour. Deviations are known as phase centre corrections. Due to synergy of carrier and code phase, similar effects on the code exist named code phase variations (CPV). They are mainly attributed to electromagnetic interactions of several active and passive elements of the receiver antenna. Consequently, a calibration and estimation strategy is necessary to determine the shape and magnitudes of the CPV. Such a concept was proposed, implemented and tested at the Institut für Erdmessung. The applied methodology and the obtained results are reported and discussed in this paper.We show that the azimuthal and elevation-dependent CPV can reach maximum magnitudes of 0.2–0.3m for geodetic antennas and up to maximum values of 1.8m for small navigation antennas. The obtained values are validated by dedicated tests in the observation and coordinate domain. As a result, CPV are identified to be antenna- related properties that are independent from location and time of calibration. Even for geodetic antennas when forming linear combinations the CPV effect can be amplified to values of 0.4–0.6 m. Thus, a significant fractional of theMelbourne–Wübbena linear combination. A case study highlights that incorrect ambiguity resolution can occur due to neglecting CPV corrections. The impact on the coordinates whichmay reach up to the dmlevel is illustrated. The final publication is available at Springer via https://doi.org/10.1007/s00190-016-0984-8