How Do We Assess Civic Attitudes Toward Equal Rights? Data and Methodology

This open access thematic report identifies factors and conditions that can help schools and education systems promote tolerance in a globalized world. The IEA’s International Civic and Citizenship Study (ICCS) is a comparative research program designed to investigate the ways in which young people are prepared to undertake their roles as citizens, and provides a wealth of data permitting not only comparison between countries but also comparisons between schools within countries, and students within countries. Advanced analytical methods provide insights into relationships between students’ attitudes towards cultural diversity and the characteristics of the students themselves, their families, their teachers and school principals. The rich diversity of educational and cultural contexts in the 38 countries who participated in ICCS 2009 are also acknowledged and addressed. Readers interested in civic education and adolescents’ attitudes towards cultural diversity will find the theoretical perspectives explored engaging. For readers interested in methodology, the advanced analytical methods employed present textbook examples of how to address cross-cultural comparability of measurement instruments and multilevel data structures in international large-scale assessments (ILSA). Meanwhile, those interested in educational policy should find the identification and comparison of malleable factors across education systems that contribute to positive student attitudes towards cultural diversity a useful and thought-provoking resource

Transbilayer Phospholipid Movements in ABCA1-Deficient Cells

Tangier disease is an inherited disorder that results in a deficiency in circulating levels of HDL. Although the disease is known to be caused by mutations in the ABCA1 gene, the mechanism by which lesions in the ABCA1 ATPase effect this outcome is not known. The inability of ABCA1 knockout mice (ABCA1−/−) to load cholesterol and phospholipids onto apoA1 led to a proposal that ABCA1 mediates the transbilayer externalization of phospholipids, an activity integral not only to the formation of HDL particles but also to another, distinct process: the recognition and clearance of apoptotic cells by macrophages. Expression of phosphatidylserine (PS) on the surface of both macrophages and their apoptotic targets is required for efficient engulfment of the apoptotic cells, and it has been proposed that ABCA1 is required for transbilayer externalization of PS to the surface of both cell types. To determine whether ABCA1 is responsible for any of the catalytic activities known to control transbilayer phospholipid movements, these activities were measured in cells from ABCA1−/− mice and from Tangier individuals as well as ABCA1-expressing HeLa cells. Phospholipid movements in either normal or apoptotic lymphocytes or in macrophages were not inhibited when cells from knockout and wildtype mice or immortalized cells from Tangier individuals vs normal individuals were compared. Exposure of PS on the surface of normal thymocytes, apoptotic thymocytes and elicited peritoneal macrophages from wildtype and knockout mice or B lymphocytes from normal and Tangier individuals, as measured by annexin V binding, was also unchanged. No evidence was found of ABCA1-stimulated active PS export, and spontaneous PS movement to the outer leaflet in the presence or absence of apoA1 was unaffected by the presence or absence of ABCA1. Normal or Tangier B lymphocytes and macrophages were also identical in their ability to serve as targets or phagocytes, respectively, in apoptotic cell clearance assays. No evidence was found to support the suggestion that ABCA1 is involved in transport to the macrophage cell surface of annexins I and II, known to enhance phagocytosis of apoptotic cells. These results show that mutations in ABCA1 do not measurably reduce the rate of transbilayer movements of phospholipids in either the engulfing macrophage or the apoptotic target, thus discounting catalysis of transbilayer movements of phospholipids as the mechanism by which ABCA1 facilitates loading of phospholipids and cholesterol onto apoA1

Ovarian cancer

Ovarian cancer is not a single disease and can be subdivided into at least five different histological subtypes that have different identifiable risk factors, cells of origin, molecular compositions, clinical features and treatments. Ovarian cancer is a global problem, is typically diagnosed at a late stage and has no effective screening strategy. Standard treatments for newly diagnosed cancer consist of cytoreductive surgery and platinum-based chemotherapy. In recurrent cancer, chemotherapy, anti-angiogenic agents and poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors are used, and immunological therapies are currently being tested. High-grade serous carcinoma (HGSC) is the most commonly diagnosed form of ovarian cancer and at diagnosis is typically very responsive to platinum-based chemotherapy. However, in addition to the other histologies, HGSCs frequently relapse and become increasingly resistant to chemotherapy. Consequently, understanding the mechanisms underlying platinum resistance and finding ways to overcome them are active areas of study in ovarian cancer. Substantial progress has been made in identifying genes that are associated with a high risk of ovarian cancer (such as BRCA1 and BRCA2), as well as a precursor lesion of HGSC called serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma, which holds promise for identifying individuals at high risk of developing the disease and for developing prevention strategies

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition)

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. For example, a key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process versus those that measure fl ux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process including the amount and rate of cargo sequestered and degraded). In particular, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation must be differentiated from stimuli that increase autophagic activity, defi ned as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (inmost higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium ) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the fi eld understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. It is worth emphasizing here that lysosomal digestion is a stage of autophagy and evaluating its competence is a crucial part of the evaluation of autophagic flux, or complete autophagy. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. Along these lines, because of the potential for pleiotropic effects due to blocking autophagy through genetic manipulation it is imperative to delete or knock down more than one autophagy-related gene. In addition, some individual Atg proteins, or groups of proteins, are involved in other cellular pathways so not all Atg proteins can be used as a specific marker for an autophagic process. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field