Fragmentation and disk formation in high-mass star formation: The IRAM large program CORE

The IRAM CORE large program combines data from NOEMA and the IRAM 30m telescope to study a diverse set of physical and chemical processes during the formation of high-mass stars. Here, we present a selected compilation of exciting results obtained during the survey

Using U–Pb carbonate dating to constrain the timing of extension and fault reactivation within the Bristol Channel Basin, SW England

The Bristol Channel Basin is a Mesozoic continental rift basin. The basin is an important analogue for offshore reservoirs. Relative cross-cutting relationships and correlation with adjacent sedimentary basins have previously been used to constrain the timing of basin development. In situ U–Pb carbonate geochronology has been used to date calcite slickenfibre development in the cores of normal, thrust and strike-slip faults in the East Quantoxhead and Kilve region of Somerset for the first time. Protracted north–south extension from c. 150 to 120 Ma formed normal faults. Subsequent north–south shortening from c. 50 to 20 Ma was accommodated by (1) mutually cross-cutting strike-slip faults, (2) minor east–west-striking thrust faults and (3) the reactivation of pre-existing normal faults. Throughout Cenozoic contraction, σ2 and σ3 remained similar in magnitude and periodically flipped to become vertical; this was probably controlled by local stress permutations and changes in fluid pressure. The timing of inversion is contemporaneous with dominant Pyrenean and later Alpine orogenic events, as well as the opening of the Mid-Atlantic Rift. Early inversion of the Bristol Channel Basin was probably driven by far-field Pyrenean deformation, with later contraction caused by Alpine forces. Ridge push from the Mid-Atlantic Rift exacerbated the reactivation of the basin

From Clouds to Young Stellar Objects and back again: the all-in-one view from the Herschel infrared Galactic Plane Survey

From diffuse interstellar cirrus to dense atomic and molecular clouds, from protostellar to post-AGB envelopes, from super-shells to supernovae remnants, the Herschel Hi-GAL survey offer an unprecedented snapshot of all the different phases of the Galactic ISM, its evolution and interactions. I will present early results on a variety of topics including the lifetime of massive pre-stellar phases, the fragmentation and collapse of extended structures, the timeline for massive star formation, dust properties in cirrus and molecular clouds

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