Prospectus, November 1, 1978

CELEBRATION OF WOMEN\u27S CREATIVITY\u27; letters to the editor: One student feels Tobacco chewers rate low; What is a clamato?; Corrections; Fall play coming soon; DePree to visit PC; Concert pianist gives recital at PC; PC visitation week begins this week; Italian beef sale kicks off Parkland College activities for following week; Mini-course at PC; Long Living Program hosts exercise workshop; Seminary Day starts Thursday; PC students donate 77 pints of blood in drive; Using research animals is topic of essay contest; Hottest band in the galaxy left crowd cold; Pop Quiz!; Louise Parker is valuable asset to Parkland students and faculty; Task force to be made for competency testing; \u27Celebration of Women\u27s Creativity\u27; Ron Taylor is Parkland\u27s new advertising instructor; Conference for horse owners Nov. 18-19; Children have different ideas about religion; Learning Lab helps students nurses study; Evolution-- Are the apes laughing at us?; Only \u27the tip of the iceberg\u27 is encountered by W.A.R.; New cases opened by Women Against Rape; Weekly events for Krannert; Switchboard for women added; Classifieds; WPCD Top 20 for the Week of Oct. 30; Baseball season has ended, now looking to next year; Henry is new treasurer; Cobras defeat Lincoln Land; Parkland College to host the National cross country meet; Elam, Larson, lead X-country to 5th in state; Fast Freddy Contest; Freddy causes problems but wants to be tougherhttps://spark.parkland.edu/prospectus_1978/1005/thumbnail.jp

Prospectus, October 25, 1978

HAPPY HALLOWEEN; Editorial ---- Is bookstore nonprofit?; Tobacco chewers. a minority; Gaybars, no interest to straights; letters to the editor: Bulldozed trees anger teacher; Bridge tourney to be Dec. 7; PC debaters attend tourney; Foreign language clubs have dinner; Parkland activities for Oct. 25-31; Christie hosts program; Final night for mime workers; PC speech team places tenth; Visitation day set at Parkland; PC board meeting: Parkland is in top ten in financial aid provided; Dance held for shelter; Illinois harvest \u2778; After the Illinois Harvest; Unspectacular season; Halloween gained popularity by potato famine; PC to celebrate Halloween; Women\u27s program is a success; African student gives his opinions of America; WPCD Top Ten Singles, Top Five Albums, Top Five Country Singles; Electronic club visits computer of Busey Bank; Free Classifieds; Tourney is this weekend; Little Feat better than ever; Volleyball to play six games; CC to run at state; Hartman places 3rd; Fast Freddy Contest; Seven score perfect in Fast Freddyhttps://spark.parkland.edu/prospectus_1978/1006/thumbnail.jp

The Cognitive and Behavioral Phenotype of the 16p11.2 Deletion in a Clinically Ascertained Population

BackgroundDeletion of the recurrent ~600 kb BP4-BP5 chromosomal region 16p11.2 has been associated with a wide range of neurodevelopmental outcomes.MethodsTo clarify the phenotype of 16p11.2 deletion, we examined the psychiatric and developmental presentation of predominantly clinically referred individuals, with a particular emphasis on broader autism phenotype characteristics in individuals with recurrent ~600 kb chromosome 16p11.2 deletions. Using an extensive standardized assessment battery across three clinical sites, 85 individuals with the 16p11.2 deletion and 153 familial control subjects were evaluated for symptom presentation and clinical diagnosis.ResultsIndividuals with the 16p11.2 deletion presented with a high frequency of psychiatric and developmental disorders (>90%). The most commonly diagnosed conditions were developmental coordination disorder, phonologic processing disorder, expressive and receptive language disorders (71% of individuals >3 years old with a speech and language-related disorder), and autism spectrum disorder. Individuals with the 16p11.2 deletion not meeting diagnostic criteria for autism spectrum disorder had a significantly higher prevalence of autism-related characteristics compared with the familial noncarrier control group. Individuals with the 16p11.2 deletion had a range of intellectual ability, but IQ scores were 26 points lower than noncarrier family members on average.ConclusionsClinically referred individuals with the 16p11.2 deletion have high rates of psychiatric and developmental disorders and provide a genetically well-defined group to study the emergence of developmental difficulties, particularly associated with the broader autism phenotype

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