Unexpected Ground-Glass Opacities on Abdominopelvic CT of a Patient With a Negative SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Test Result and No Respiratory Symptoms Upon Admission

One of the biggest challenges during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic continues to be the detection of asymptomatic and presymptomatic persons infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Persons infected with SARS-CoV-2 who do not have symptoms of COVID-19 may transmit the virus to others and may have subclinical lung abnormalities. Some hospitals use SARSCoV-2 antigen tests for pre-admission screening testing because they are relatively inexpensive, have a rapid turnaround time, and can be performed at the point of care; however, antigen tests are generally less sensitive than nucleic acid amplification tests with reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay. Moreover, as the local COVID-19 prevalence increases, the negative predictive value of antigen tests may decrease, meaning that the probability of having false-negative results may increase. We present a case of a patient who, prior to admission for a surgical procedure, had a negative antigen test result for SARSCoV-2, had no respiratory symptoms, and had no suspected or known exposure to SARS-CoV-2; however, she tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA after admission. The only factor that led the healthcare team to suspect SARS-CoV-2 infection was an unexpected finding of bilateral ground-glass opacities on an abdominopelvic computed tomography (CT), which was performed to assess the extent of a perianal abscess the patient presented. This case highlights the importance of using highly sensitive SARS-CoV-2 tests for pre-admission screening testing in the hospital settin

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