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

Melatonin protects against apoptosis-inducing factor (AIF)-dependent cell death during acetaminophen-induced acute liver failure.

Acetaminophen (APAP) overdose is the most frequent cause of acute liver failure and is primarily caused by cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2E1-driven conversion of APAP into hepatotoxic metabolites. Several reports showed that melatonin attenuated APAP-induced acute liver failure. Nevertheless, the exact mechanism remains obscure. In the present study, we investigated the effects of melatonin on apoptosis-inducing factor (AIF)-dependent cell death in APAP-induced acute liver failure. Mice were intraperitoneally (i.p.) injected with different doses of melatonin (1.25, 5, 20 mg/kg) 30 min before APAP (300 mg/kg, i.p.). As expected, melatonin significantly alleviated APAP-induced cell death, as determined by TdT-mediated dUTP-biotin nick end labeling (TUNEL) assay. Further analysis showed that melatonin significantly attenuated APAP-induced activation of the serine/threonine kinase receptor interacting protein 1 (RIP1). In addition, melatonin inhibited APAP-induced hepatic c-Jun N-terminal kinase (JNK) phosphorylation and mitochondrial Bax translocation. Correspondingly, melatonin inhibited APAP-induced translocation of AIF from mitochondria to nuclei. Interestingly, no changes were induced by melatonin on hepatic CYP2E1 expression. In addition, melatonin had little effect on APAP-induced hepatic glutathione (GSH) depletion. In conclusion, melatonin protects against AIF-dependent cell death during APAP-induced acute liver failure through its direct inhibition of hepatic RIP1 and subsequent JNK phosphorylation and mitochondrial Bax translocation

Expert Performance in Visual Differentiation of Bacterial and Fungal Keratitis

This study quantifies the performance of an international cohort of cornea specialists in image-based differentiation of bacterial and fungal keratitis, identifying significant regional variation and establishing a reference standard for comparison against machine learning models

Deep sequencing analysis of clinical samples from patients with acute infectious conjunctivitis during the COVID-19 delta surge in Madurai, India

BackgroundSeasonal outbreaks of infectious conjunctivitis remain a public health issue. Determination of outbreak etiologies in the context of a worldwide pandemic may provide useful information to guide public health strategies. The aim of this study was to identify pathogens associated with outpatient infectious conjunctivitis during the COVID-19 Delta surge.MethodsThis prospective study was conducted from April 2021 to September 2021. All outpatients presenting to the Aravind Eye Center (Madurai, India) with signs and symptoms consistent with acute infectious conjunctivitis were eligible. Three swabs were obtained from each participant: one from each conjunctiva and one from the anterior nares. Samples were processed for metagenomic RNA deep sequencing (RNA-seq).ResultsSamples from 106 study participants were sequenced. The most common presenting symptoms were tearing (86%) and itching (71%). Preauricular lymphadenopathy was present in 38% of participants. 20% of participants had close contacts with similar symptoms. Systemic symptoms such as coughing, runny nose, vomiting or diarrhea were uncommonly reported. 60% of all participants used some medicated eye drops upon enrollment. 75% of study participants demonstrated infection with human adenovirus D (HAdV-D). 11% of conjunctivitis was associated with SARS-CoV-2. 15% had no definitive pathogen detected. 8% of all participants had codetection of more than one pathogen on RNA-seq.ConclusionsDuring the COVID-19 Delta surge in India, HAdV-D was the most common pathogen associated with infectious conjunctivitis. SARS-CoV-2 was the second most common associated pathogen. Seasonal surveillance may be necessary for the determination of emerging and reemerging pathogens responsible for infectious conjunctivitis

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