PERSPECTIVAS DEL DICTAMEN PERICIAL EN EL PROCESO ARBITRAL COLOMBIANO

En principio se dio una mirada al Dictamen Pericial en el ordenamiento jurídico Colombiano, de igual forma se dio un análisis a las discusiones que se han suscitado en torno a la presencia del Estatuto Arbitral y la regulación que sobre el tema plantea el Código General del Proceso. De igual forma, se ofrece al lector una descripción de varios casos en concreto en virtud de los cuales la figura propia del dictamen pericial ha llegado a ser discutida en diferentes escenarios, que incluyen, entre otros, a los arbitrales, los judiciales e incluso la presencia de casos que han sido analizados en las altas corporaciones del poder público, incluyendo, entre otros, a la Corte Suprema de Justicia, y a la Corte Constitucional colombianos. Finalmente, se realizan algunas reflexiones respecto a la figura analizadaUniversidad Libre-Derecho-Especialización Derecho ProcesalIn principle, a look was given to the Expert Opinion in the Colombian legal system, in the same way an analysis was given to the discussions that have arisen around the presence of the Arbitration Statute and the regulation that the General Code of Process raises on the subject. . In the same way, the reader is offered a description of several specific cases by virtue of which the figure of the expert opinion itself has come to be discussed in different scenarios, which include, among others, arbitral, judicial and even the presence of cases that have been analyzed in high-ranking public power corporations, including, among others, the Supreme Court of Justice and the Colombian Constitutional Court. Finally, some reflections are made regarding the analyzed figure

PERSPECTIVAS DEL DICTAMEN PERICIAL EN EL PROCESO ARBITRAL COLOMBIANO

En principio se da una mirada al Dictamen Pericial en el ordenamiento jurídico Colombiano, de igual forma se exponen las diferentes discusiones que se aun suscitado en torno al tema, tanto por la presencia del Estatuto Arbitral como por el Código General del Proceso De igual forma, se ofrece al lector una descripción de varios casos en concreto en virtud de los cuales la figura propia del dictamen pericial ha llegado a ser discutida en diferentes escenarios, que incluyen, entre otros, a los arbitrales, los judiciales e incluso la presencia de casos que han sido analizados en las altas corporaciones del poder público, incluyendo, entre otros, a la Corte Suprema de Justicia, y a la Corte Constitucional colombianos. Finalmente, se realizan algunas reflexiones respecto a la figura analizadaUniversidad Libre-Derecho-Especialización Derecho ProcesalIn principle, a look is given to the Expert Opinion in the Colombian legal system, in the same way the different discussions that are still raised around the subject are exposed, both by the presence of the Arbitration Statute and by the General Code of Process In the same way, the reader is offered a description of several specific cases by virtue of which the figure of the expert opinion itself has come to be discussed in different scenarios, which include, among others, arbitral, judicial and even the presence of cases that have been analyzed in high-ranking public power corporations, including, among others, the Supreme Court of Justice and the Colombian Constitutional Court. Finally, some reflections are made regarding the analyzed figure

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

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

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