Deciphering Plant-Insect-Microorganism Signals for Sustainable Crop Production

Agricultural crop productivity relies on the application of chemical pesticides to reduce pest and pathogen damage. However, chemical pesticides also pose a range of ecological, environmental and economic penalties. This includes the development of pesticide resistance by insect pests and pathogens, rendering pesticides less effective. Alternative sustainable crop protection tools should therefore be considered. Semiochemicals are signalling molecules produced by organisms, including plants, microbes, and animals, which cause behavioural or developmental changes in receiving organisms. Manipulating semiochemicals could provide a more sustainable approach to the management of insect pests and pathogens across crops. Here, we review the role of semiochemicals in the interaction between plants, insects and microbes, including examples of how they have been applied to agricultural systems. We highlight future research priorities to be considered for semiochemicals to be credible alternatives to the application of chemical pesticides

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

On a class of algorithms from experimental design theory

On a class of algorithms from experimental design theory. - In: Optimization. 24. 1992. S. 91-12