Interpreting canopy development and physiology using the EUROPhen camera network at flux sites

Peer reviewe

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

Analisis de la comercializacion de lena y sus implicancias en la utilizacion sustentable del recurso forestal, en relacion al potencial ecoturistico de Isla Navarino.

70 p.Isla Navarino forma parte del Archipiélago del Cabo de Hornos, el cual posee ecosistemas prístinos de gran valor biocultural. Los bosques en isla Navarino están sujetos a una fuerte presión por parte de la población, debido a que su explotación es necesaria para la obtención de leña para calefacción. Los sistemas empleados para dicha extracción no poseen los criterios silvícolas que propendan a la sustentabilidad del recurso a pesar de la existencia de planes de manejo para dichos objetivos. El consumo promedio actual de la leña en la isla alcanza a los 10.721,5 m3 al año y la comercialización de ésta se realiza de forma directa entre el productor y el consumidor. La leña para este consumo se obtiene del Lote 5F, el cual es administrado por la Municipalidad de Cabo de Hornos. Esta investigación consistió en analizar cómo se efectúa la comercialización de la leña y para el contexto actual de la Isla, se plantearon dos escenarios. El primero muestra que el consumo de leña aumentaría en un1 % debido al incremento de infraestructura para turismo en los próximos 6 años y el segundo produciría un aumento del consumo de leña de un 44,g0/0, debido al incremento poblacional proyectado por el INE al año 2012. Esta investigación muestra que el impacto del desarrollo del ecoturismo en los próximos 6 años es relativamente bajo. No obstante, para asegurar el manejo sustentable del bosque en la isla, deben emplearse estrategias que consideren, tanto los métodos utilizados para la extracción de leña, como los sistemas de calefacción que se deberán emplear cuando exista un alto crecimiento demográfico sistemas de calefacción que se deberán emplear cuando el exista un alto crecimiento demográfico

TII - Arquitectura y Arte - AR334 - 202102

Descripción: La arquitectura es un juego de luz y sombras, volúmenes y espacios, colores, texturas, materiales, etc., en este curso se introduce al futuro arquitecto en el arte de combinar dichos elementos de un modo creativo y útil, reflejando cómo somos y qué hacemos las personas. Este taller pretende explorar una parte de ese universo, oculto para algunos, y enseñarnos como se puede diseñar algo que luego será parte de nuestro entorno, convirtiendo en realidad algo que nació de la imaginación. Propósito: TII - Arquitectura y Arte es la base indispensable para los talleres siguientes. Se propone introducir al estudiante en el ejercicio del diseño arquitectónico por caminos indirectos, reflexionando sobre algún asunto relativo a la arquitectura (teoría) poniendo énfasis en el arte (concepto) para luego resolver un encargo (práctica). Generalmente estos encargos esconden simples claves que permiten resolver con ingenio y creatividad el desafío. Deben ser desarrollados individualmente o en grupos para compartir ideas, soluciones y responsabilidades en busca del proyecto perfecto. Esta asignatura contribuye directamente al desarrollo de la competencia general de Pensamiento Innovador y la competencia especifica de Diseño fundamentado que corresponde a los criterios NAAB: PC2, PC5, SC5) ambas a un Nivel 1. Su requisito es haber aprobado Expresión Artística y Espacial y TI- introducción al Diseño Arquitectónico

The impact of surgical delay on resectability of colorectal cancer: An international prospective cohort study

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has provided a unique opportunity to explore the impact of surgical delays on cancer resectability. This study aimed to compare resectability for colorectal cancer patients undergoing delayed versus non-delayed surgery

The impact of surgical delay on resectability of colorectal cancer: An international prospective cohort study

AimThe SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has provided a unique opportunity to explore the impact of surgical delays on cancer resectability. This study aimed to compare resectability for colorectal cancer patients undergoing delayed versus non-delayed surgery.MethodsThis was an international prospective cohort study of consecutive colorectal cancer patients with a decision for curative surgery (January-April 2020). Surgical delay was defined as an operation taking place more than 4 weeks after treatment decision, in a patient who did not receive neoadjuvant therapy. A subgroup analysis explored the effects of delay in elective patients only. The impact of longer delays was explored in a sensitivity analysis. The primary outcome was complete resection, defined as curative resection with an R0 margin.ResultsOverall, 5453 patients from 304 hospitals in 47 countries were included, of whom 6.6% (358/5453) did not receive their planned operation. Of the 4304 operated patients without neoadjuvant therapy, 40.5% (1744/4304) were delayed beyond 4 weeks. Delayed patients were more likely to be older, men, more comorbid, have higher body mass index and have rectal cancer and early stage disease. Delayed patients had higher unadjusted rates of complete resection (93.7% vs. 91.9%, P = 0.032) and lower rates of emergency surgery (4.5% vs. 22.5%, P ConclusionOne in 15 colorectal cancer patients did not receive their planned operation during the first wave of COVID-19. Surgical delay did not appear to compromise resectability, raising the hypothesis that any reduction in long-term survival attributable to delays is likely to be due to micro-metastatic disease

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

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