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

Religion, parochialism and intuitive cooperation

Religions promote cooperation, but they can also be divisive. Is religious cooperation intuitively parochial against atheists? Evidence supporting the social heuristics hypothesis (SHH) suggests that cooperation is intuitive, independent of religious group identity. We tested this prediction in a one-shot prisoner’s dilemma game, where 1,280 practising Christian believers were paired with either a coreligionist or an atheist and where time limits were used to increase reliance on either intuitive or deliberated decisions. We explored another dual-process account of cooperation, the self-control account (SCA), which suggests that visceral reactions tend to be selfish and that cooperation requires deliberation. We found evidence for religious parochialism but no support for SHH’s prediction of intuitive cooperation. Consistent with SCA but requiring confirmation in future studies, exploratory analyses showed that religious parochialism involves decision conflict and concern for strong reciprocity and that deliberation promotes cooperation independent of religious group identity

Error-prone inference from response time: The case of intuitive generosity in public-good games

Previous research on public-good games revealed greater contributions by fast decision-makers than by slow decision-makers. Interpreting greater contributions as generosity, this has been seen as evidence of generosity being intuitive. We caution that fast decisions are more prone to error, and that mistakes, rather than preferences, may drive the observed comparative static. Varying the location of the equilibrium in public-good games with a unique dominant strategy, we show that the location of the equilibrium determines whether contributions are larger for fast decision-makers than for slow decision-makers. Replicating previous results, we find that fast decision-makers give more than slow decision-makers when the equilibrium is below the mid-point of the strategy set, but that this result is reversed when the equilibrium is above the mid-point. Consistent with fast decisions being more prone to error, we find that individuals who make (or have to make) fast decisions are insensitive to incentives, more often make mistakes, and are less likely to make equilibrium contributions. These findings make clear that we must control for the rate of errors if we are to draw inference on preferences from response time

Antiblastic Treatment, for Solid Tumors, during Pregnancy: A Crucial Decision

Cancer is the second leading cause of death during the reproductive years complicating between 0.02% and 0.1% of pregnancies. The incidence is expected to rise with the increase in age of childbearing. The most common types of pregnancy-associated cancers are: cervical cancer, breast cancer, malignant melanoma, Hodgkin's lymphoma, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and ovarian cancer. The relatively rare occurrence of pregnancy-associated cancer precludes conducting large, prospective studies to examine diagnostic, management and outcome issues. The treatment of pregnancy-associated cancer is complex since it may be associated with adverse fatal effects. In pregnant patients diagnosed with cancer during the first trimester, treatment with multidrug anti-cancer chemotherapy is associated with an increased risk of congenital malformations, spontaneous abortions or fetal death, and therefore, should follow a strong recommendation for pregnancy termination. Second and third trimester exposure is not associated with teratogenic effect but increases the risk of intrauterine growth retardation and low birth weight. There are no sufficient data regarding the teratogenicity of most cytotoxic drugs. Almost all chemotherapeutic agents were found to be teratogenic in animals and for some drugs only experimental data exist. Moreover, no pharmacokinetic studies have been conducted in pregnant women receiving chemotherapy in order to understand whether pregnant women should be treated with different doses of chemotherapy. This article reviews the available data regarding the different aspects of the treatment of cancer during pregnancy