Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)1.

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

G6PD deficiency in Latin America: systematic review on prevalence and variants

Plasmodium vivax radical cure requires the use of primaquine (PQ), a drug that induces haemolysis in glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficient (G6PDd) individuals, which further hampers malaria control efforts. The aim of this work was to study the G6PDd prevalence and variants in Latin America (LA) and the Caribbean region. A systematic search of the published literature was undertaken in August 2013. Bibliographies of manuscripts were also searched and additional references were identified. Low prevalence rates of G6PDd were documented in Argentina, Bolivia, Mexico, Peru and Uruguay, but studies from Curaçao, Ecuador, Jamaica, Saint Lucia, Suriname and Trinidad, as well as some surveys carried out in areas of Brazil, Colombia and Cuba, have shown a high prevalence (> 10%) of G6PDd. The G6PD A-202A mutation was the variant most broadly distributed across LA and was identified in 81.1% of the deficient individuals surveyed. G6PDd is a frequent phenomenon in LA, although certain Amerindian populations may not be affected, suggesting that PQ could be safely used in these specific populations. Population-wide use of PQ as part of malaria elimination strategies in LA cannot be supported unless a rapid, accurate and field-deployable G6PDd diagnostic test is made available

Regulatory Role of Cannabinoid Receptor 1 in Stress-Induced Excitotoxicity and Neuroinflammation

Exposure to stress elicits excitoxicity and neuroinflammation in the brain, contributing to cell death and damage in stress-related neurological and neuropsychiatric diseases. The endocannabinoid system is present in stress-responsive neural circuits and has been proposed as an endogenous neuroprotective system activated in some neuropathological scenarios to restore homeostasis. To elucidate the possible regulatory role of cannabinoid receptor 1 (CB1) in stress-induced excitotoxicity and neuroinflammation, both genetic and pharmacological approaches were used alternatively: (1) wild-type (WT) and CB1 knockout mice (CB1-KO) were exposed to immobilization/acoustic stress (2 h/day for 4 days) and (2) to specifically activate CB1, the selective CB1 agonist Arachidonyl-2′-chloroethylamide (ACEA) (2.5 mg/kg) was intraperitoneally administered daily to some groups of animals. Stress exposure increased CB1 mRNA and protein expression in the prefrontal cortex of WT mice in a mechanism related to N-methyl--aspartate glutamate receptor activation. Daily ACEA pretreatment prevented stress-induced: (1) upregulation of CB1 mRNA and protein, (2) decrease in glutamate uptake and glutamate astroglial transporter excitatory amino acid transporter 2 expression, (3) increase in consecutive proinflammatory molecules, such as cytokines (tumor necrosis factor-α and MCP-1), nuclear factor kappa B, and enzymatic sources, such as inducible nitric oxide synthase (NOS-2) and cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2), (4) increase in lipid peroxidation; although having no effect on plasma corticosterone. Interestingly, a possible related mechanism could be the positive ACEA modulation of the antiinflammatory pathway deoxyprostaglandin/peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor γ (15d-PGJ2/PPARγ). Conversely, KO animal experiments indicated that a lack of CB1 produces hypothalamic/pituitary/adrenal (HPA) axis dysregulation and exacerbates stress-induced excitotoxic/neuroinflammatory responses. These multifaceted neuroprotective effects suggest that CB1 activation could be a new therapeutic strategy against neurological/neuropsychiatric pathologies with HPA axis dysregulation and an excitotoxic/neuroinflammatory component in their pathophysiology

ESICM LIVES 2016: part two : Milan, Italy. 1-5 October 2016.

Meeting abstrac