CARB-ES-19 Multicenter Study of Carbapenemase-Producing Klebsiella pneumoniae and Escherichia coli From All Spanish Provinces Reveals Interregional Spread of High-Risk Clones Such as ST307/OXA-48 and ST512/KPC-3

ObjectivesCARB-ES-19 is a comprehensive, multicenter, nationwide study integrating whole-genome sequencing (WGS) in the surveillance of carbapenemase-producing K. pneumoniae (CP-Kpn) and E. coli (CP-Eco) to determine their incidence, geographical distribution, phylogeny, and resistance mechanisms in Spain.MethodsIn total, 71 hospitals, representing all 50 Spanish provinces, collected the first 10 isolates per hospital (February to May 2019); CPE isolates were first identified according to EUCAST (meropenem MIC > 0.12 mg/L with immunochromatography, colorimetric tests, carbapenem inactivation, or carbapenem hydrolysis with MALDI-TOF). Prevalence and incidence were calculated according to population denominators. Antibiotic susceptibility testing was performed using the microdilution method (EUCAST). All 403 isolates collected were sequenced for high-resolution single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) typing, core genome multilocus sequence typing (cgMLST), and resistome analysis.ResultsIn total, 377 (93.5%) CP-Kpn and 26 (6.5%) CP-Eco isolates were collected from 62 (87.3%) hospitals in 46 (92%) provinces. CP-Kpn was more prevalent in the blood (5.8%, 50/853) than in the urine (1.4%, 201/14,464). The cumulative incidence for both CP-Kpn and CP-Eco was 0.05 per 100 admitted patients. The main carbapenemase genes identified in CP-Kpn were blaOXA–48 (263/377), blaKPC–3 (62/377), blaVIM–1 (28/377), and blaNDM–1 (12/377). All isolates were susceptible to at least two antibiotics. Interregional dissemination of eight high-risk CP-Kpn clones was detected, mainly ST307/OXA-48 (16.4%), ST11/OXA-48 (16.4%), and ST512-ST258/KPC (13.8%). ST512/KPC and ST15/OXA-48 were the most frequent bacteremia-causative clones. The average number of acquired resistance genes was higher in CP-Kpn (7.9) than in CP-Eco (5.5).ConclusionThis study serves as a first step toward WGS integration in the surveillance of carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales in Spain. We detected important epidemiological changes, including increased CP-Kpn and CP-Eco prevalence and incidence compared to previous studies, wide interregional dissemination, and increased dissemination of high-risk clones, such as ST307/OXA-48 and ST512/KPC-3

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

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