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

Confirmation of microevolutionary increase in spina bifida occulta among Swiss birth cohorts

Previous studies on the prevalence of spina bifida occulta have indicated a microevolutionary increase in its frequency and possible population differences in the prevalence of the condition. We studied the frequencies of closed and open sacral canals at each sacral level among two birth cohorts in Switzerland. Transverse CT scans and multiplanar reconstruction images of sacra of 95 males and 96 females born in 1940–1950 and 99 males and 94 females born in 1970–1980 in Switzerland were reviewed. We found that individuals born later have significantly more open sacral arches at all sacral levels compared to those born 30–40 years earlier. When results were related to previously published data on Australian cohorts, the trend was the same, but Swiss in both cohorts were less likely to have an open section than Australians at all locations apart from S2. This study confirmed a microevolutionary trend in the opening of sacral canal among two different generations in Switzerland and demonstrated a population difference in the prevalence of spina bifida occulta

A(H1N1) pandemic influenza and its prevention by vaccination : Paediatricians’ opinions before and after the beginning of the vaccination campaign

Background: In June 2009, the World Health Organization declared an A(H1N1) influenza pandemic. In October 2009, the largest vaccination campaign in Canadian history began. The aim of this study was to document paediatricians’ knowledge, attitudes and practices (KAP) regarding A(H1N1) pandemic influenza and its prevention by vaccination just after the beginning of the A(H1N1) vaccination campaign and to compare the results with those obtained before campaign initiation. Methods: A self-administered mail-based questionnaire was sent to all Canadian paediatricians. Questionnaires were analyzed in two subsets: those received before and after the beginning of the vaccination campaign. Results: Overall the response rate was 50%. Respondents’ characteristics were comparable between the two subsets. Before the beginning of the campaign, 63% of paediatricians perceived A(H1N1) pandemic infection as a serious disease, that would occur frequently without vaccination compared to more than 75% after. Before the vaccination campaign, half of respondents or less thought that the A(H1N1) vaccine was safe (50%) and effective (35%) compared to 77% and 72% after. The proportion of paediatricians who reported they had received sufficient information on A (H1N1) vaccine increased from 31% before to 73% after the beginning of the vaccination campaign. The majority of respondents intended to get vaccinated against A(H1N1) influenza themselves (84% before and 92% after). Respondents’ intention to recommend the A(H1N1) vaccine to their patients increased from 80% before the beginning of the campaign to 92% after. In multivariate analysis, the main determinants of paediatricians’ intention to recommend the A(H1N1) vaccine were their intention to get vaccinated against A(H1N1) influenza themselves and a belief that A (H1N1) vaccine would be well accepted by health professionals who administer vaccines to the public. Conclusion: Results of this study show important increases in physicians’ level of confidence about A(H1N1) vaccine’s safety and immunogenicity and their willingness to recommend this vaccine to their patients. These changes could be explained, at least partially, by the important effort done by public health authorities to disseminate information regarding A(H1N1) vaccination.Medicine, Faculty ofPediatrics, Department ofNon UBCReviewedFacult