Quality of life and pain in premenopausal women with major depressive disorder: The POWER Study

BACKGROUND: Whereas it is established that organic pain may induce depression, it is unclear whether pain is more common in healthy subjects with depression. We assessed the prevalence of pain in premenopausal women with major depression (MDD). Subjects were 21- to 45-year-old premenopausal women with MDD (N = 70; age: 35.4 +/- 6.6; mean +/- SD) and healthy matched controls (N = 36; age 35.4 +/- 6.4) participating in a study of bone turnover, the P.O.W.E.R. (Premenopausal, Osteopenia/Osteoporosis, Women, Alendronate, Depression) Study. METHODS: Patients received a clinical assessment by a pain specialist, which included the administration of two standardized forms for pain, the Brief Pain Inventory – Short Form, and the Initial Pain Assessment Tool, and two scales of everyday stressors, the Hassles and Uplifts Scales. In addition, a quality-of-life instrument, the SF-36, was used. The diagnosis of MDD was established by a semi-structured interview, according to the DSM-IV criteria. Substance P (SP) and calcitonin-gene-related-peptide (CGRP), neuropeptides which are known mediators of pain, were measured every hour for 24 h in a subgroup of patients (N = 17) and controls (N = 14). RESULTS: Approximately one-half of the women with depression reported pain of mild intensity. Pain intensity was significantly correlated with the severity of depression (r(2 )= 0.076; P = 0.04) and tended to be correlated with the severity of anxiety, (r(2 )= 0.065; P = 0.07), and the number of depressive episodes (r(2 )= 0.072; P = 0.09). Women with MDD complained of fatigue, insomnia, and memory problems and experienced everyday negative stressors more frequently than controls. Quality of life was decreased in women with depression, as indicated by lower scores in the emotional and social well-being domains of the SF-36. SP (P < 0.0003) and CGRP (P < 0.0001) were higher in depressed subjects. CONCLUSION: Women with depression experienced pain more frequently than controls, had a lower quality of life, and complained more of daily stressors. Assessment of pain may be important in the clinical evaluation of women with MDD. SP and CGRP may be useful biological markers in women with MDD

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 (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