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

The worldwide antibiotic resistance and prescribing in european children (ARPEC) point prevalence survey : Developing hospital-quality indicators of antibiotic prescribing for children

Objectives: Previously, web-based tools for cross-sectional antimicrobial point prevalence surveys (PPSs) have been used in adults to develop indicators of quality improvement. We aimed to determine the feasibility of developing similar quality indicators of improved antimicrobial prescribing focusing specifically on hospitalized neonates and children worldwide. Methods: A standardized antimicrobial PPS method was employed. Included were all inpatient children and neonates receiving an antimicrobial at 8:00 am on the day of the PPS. Denominators included the total number of inpatients. A web-based application was used for data entry, validation and reporting. We analysed 2012 data from 226 hospitals (H) in 41 countries (C) from Europe (174H; 24C), Africa (6H; 4C), Asia (25H; 8C), Australia (6H), Latin America (11H; 3C) and North America (4H). Results: Of 17 693 admissions, 6499 (36.7%) inpatients received at least one antimicrobial, but this varied considerably between wards and regions. Potential indicators included very high broad-spectrum antibiotic prescribing in children of mainly ceftriaxone (ranked first in Eastern Europe, 31.3%; Asia, 13.0%; Southern Europe, 9.8%), cefepime (ranked third in North America, 7.8%) and meropenem (ranked first in Latin America, 13.1%). The survey identified worryingly high use of critically important antibiotics for hospital-acquired infections in neonates (34.9%; range from 14.2% in Africa to 68.0% in Latin America) compared with children (28.3%; range from 14.5% in Africa to 48.9% in Latin America). Parenteral administration was very common among children in Asia (88%), Latin America (81%) and Europe (67%). Documentation of the reasons for antibiotic prescribing was lowest in Latin America (52%). Prolonged surgical prophylaxis rates ranged from 78% (Europe) to 84% (Latin America). Conclusions: Simple web-based PPS tools provide a feasible method to identify areas for improvement of antibiotic use, to set benchmarks and to monitor future interventions in hospitalized neonates and children. To our knowledge, this study has derived the first global quality indicators for antibiotic use in hospitalized neonates and children