Quantum Impurity Entanglement

Entanglement in J_1-J_2, S=1/2 quantum spin chains with an impurity is studied using analytic methods as well as large scale numerical density matrix renormalization group methods. The entanglement is investigated in terms of the von Neumann entropy, S=-Tr rho_A log rho_A, for a sub-system A of size r of the chain. The impurity contribution to the uniform part of the entanglement entropy, S_{imp}, is defined and analyzed in detail in both the gapless, J_2 <= J_2^c, as well as the dimerized phase, J_2>J_2^c, of the model. This quantum impurity model is in the universality class of the single channel Kondo model and it is shown that in a quite universal way the presence of the impurity in the gapless phase, J_2 <= J_2^c, gives rise to a large length scale, xi_K, associated with the screening of the impurity, the size of the Kondo screening cloud. The universality of Kondo physics then implies scaling of the form S_{imp}(r/xi_K,r/R) for a system of size R. Numerical results are presented clearly demonstrating this scaling. At the critical point, J_2^c, an analytic Fermi liquid picture is developed and analytic results are obtained both at T=0 and T>0. In the dimerized phase an appealing picure of the entanglement is developed in terms of a thin soliton (TS) ansatz and the notions of impurity valence bonds (IVB) and single particle entanglement (SPE) are introduced. The TS-ansatz permits a variational calculation of the complete entanglement in the dimerized phase that appears to be exact in the thermodynamic limit at the Majumdar-Ghosh point, J_2=J_1/2, and surprisingly precise even close to the critical point J_2^c. In appendices the relation between the finite temperature entanglement entropy, S(T), and the thermal entropy, S_{th}(T), is discussed and and calculated at the MG-point using the TS-ansatz.Comment: 62 pages, 27 figures, JSTAT macro

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition)

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. For example, 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 versus those that measure fl ux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process including the amount and rate of cargo sequestered and degraded). In particular, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation must be differentiated from stimuli that increase autophagic activity, defi ned as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (inmost 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 fi eld 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. It is worth emphasizing here that lysosomal digestion is a stage of autophagy and evaluating its competence is a crucial part of the evaluation of autophagic flux, or complete autophagy. 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. Along these lines, because of the potential for pleiotropic effects due to blocking autophagy through genetic manipulation it is imperative to delete or knock down more than one autophagy-related gene. In addition, some individual Atg proteins, or groups of proteins, are involved in other cellular pathways so not all Atg proteins can be used as a specific marker for an autophagic process. 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

No abstract available

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