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

Le forme della regalità nella Roma latino-sabina

The analysis of historical sources, onomastics data, and the festive calendar, shows that the most archaic Roman kingship was structured in the form of a diarchy between a lifelong king-priest and a temporary warrior-king: the latter ruled in the season of war, while in peacetime the city government was led in turn by the patres (interregnum). This diarchy could be the result of the influence, on Roman institutions, of the constitutional structures of the Greeks and of the Italic peoples, since among other Indo-European cultures, like Vedic India and the Celts, the pattern seems rather to be a triad — composed of a priest, a supreme king and a warrior king — surviving in Rome only at a theological level in the Pre-Capitoline triad Iuppiter Mars Quirinus. Given these premises, the subsequent Etruscan monarchy appears to be the result of the rising of the army commander to a tyrannical and lifelong power, and of the marginalization of the rex sacrorum, while the Republic seems a partial restoration of the oldest constitution