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

Use of Gabapentin, Esmolol, or Their Combination to Attenuate Haemodynamic Response to Laryngoscopy and Intubation Corresponding Author

ABSTRACT Backgroun

Genetic Analysis of the CDI Pathway from Burkholderia pseudomallei 1026b

Contact-dependent growth inhibition (CDI) is a mode of inter-bacterial competition mediated by the CdiB/CdiA family of two-partner secretion systems. CdiA binds to receptors on susceptible target bacteria, then delivers a toxin domain derived from its C-terminus. Studies with Escherichia coli suggest the existence of multiple CDI growth-inhibition pathways, whereby different systems exploit distinct target-cell proteins to deliver and activate toxins. Here, we explore the CDI pathway in Burkholderia using the CDIIIBp1026b system encoded on chromosome II of Burkholderia pseudomallei 1026b as a model. We took a genetic approach and selected Burkholderia thailandensis E264 mutants that are resistant to growth inhibition by CDIIIBp1026b. We identified mutations in three genes, BTH_I0359, BTH_II0599, and BTH_I0986, each of which confers resistance to CDIIIBp1026b. BTH_I0359 encodes a small peptide of unknown function, whereas BTH_II0599 encodes a predicted inner membrane transport protein of the major facilitator superfamily. The inner membrane localization of BTH_II0599 suggests that it may facilitate translocation of CdiA-CTIIBp1026b toxin from the periplasm into the cytoplasm of target cells. BTH_I0986 encodes a putative transglycosylase involved in lipopolysaccharide (LPS) synthesis. ∆BTH_I0986 mutants have altered LPS structure and do not interact with CDI⁺ inhibitor cells to the same extent as BTH_I0986⁺ cells, suggesting that LPS could function as a receptor for CdiAIIBp1026b. Although ∆BTH_I0359, ∆BTH_II0599, and ∆BTH_I0986 mutations confer resistance to CDIIIBp1026b, they provide no protection against the CDIE264 system deployed by B. thailandensis E264. Together, these findings demonstrate that CDI growth-inhibition pathways are distinct and can differ significantly even between closely related species