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

Dialysis care and dialysis funding in Asia

Asia is the largest and most populated continent in the world, with a high burden of kidney failure. In this Policy Forum article, we explore dialysis care and dialysis funding in 17 countries in Asia, describing conditions in both developed and developing nations across the region. In 13 of the 17 countries surveyed, diabetes is the most common cause of kidney failure. Due to great variation in gross domestic product per capita across Asian countries, disparities in the provision of kidney replacement therapy (KRT) exist both within and between countries. A number of Asian nations have satisfactory access to KRT and have comprehensive KRT registries to help inform practices, but some do not, particularly among low- and low-to-middle-income countries. Given these differences, we describe the economic status, burden of kidney failure, and cost of KRT across the different modalities to both governments and patients and how changes in health policy over time affect outcomes. Emerging trends suggest that more affluent nations and those with universal health care or access to insurance have much higher prevalent dialysis and transplantation rates, while in less affluent nations, dialysis access may be limited and when available, provided less frequently than optimal. These trends are also reflected by an association between nephrologist prevalence and individual nations’ incomes and a disparity in the number of nephrologists per million population and per thousand KRT patients