Effects of UV light intensity on electrochemical wet etching of SiC for the fabrication of suspended graphene

We report on the effects of UV light intensity on the photo assisted electrochemical wet etching of SiC(0001) underneath an epitaxially grown graphene for the fabrication of suspended structures. The maximum etching rate of SiC(0001) was 2.5µm/h under UV light irradiation in 1wt% KOH at a constant current of 0.5mA/cm2. The successful formation of suspended structures depended on the etching rate of SiC. In the Raman spectra of the suspended structures, we did not observe a significant increase in the intensity of the D peak, which originates from defects in graphene sheets. This is most likely explained by the high quality of the single-crystalline graphene epitaxially grown on SiC

Resistivity anisotropy measured using four probes in epitaxial graphene on silicon carbide

The electronic transport of epitaxial graphene on silicon carbide is anisotropic because of the anisotropy of the surface structure of the substrate. In this Letter, we present a new method for measuring anisotropic transport based on the van der Pauw method. This method can measure anisotropic transport on the macroscopic scale without special equipment or device fabrication. We observe an anisotropic resistivity with a ratio of maximum to minimum of 1.62. The calculated maximum mobility is 2876cm2·V-1·s-1, which is 1.43 times higher than that obtained by the standard van der Pauw method

Microscopic Raman Mapping of Epitaxial Graphene on 4H-SiC(0001)

We propose a quality control method for wafer-scale epitaxial graphene grown on SiC substrates. The peak position of Raman spectra of epitaxial graphene is an excellent indicator of film quality and reveals irregularities, such as graphene thickness inhomogeneity and SiC substrate defects. A comparison of microscopic Raman maps and scanning probe microscopy images of the same position of the sample revealed that wave numbers of Raman peaks (G and 2D band peaks) were strongly correlated with the strain in the graphene film. The increase in number of graphene layers (2 to 3–4 layers) induced phonon softening (~6 cm-1) and broadening (~6 cm-1) of the 2D band peak. Significant phonon softening and abnormal broadening of the Raman peaks were observed at residual scratches on the SiC substrate. The quantitative layer number distribution of graphene on SiC is successfully estimated from the wave number distribution of the 2D band peak

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

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

International audienceIn 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

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

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