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

Diagnostic considerations about visceral leishmaniasis. Two case report

Two cases of visceral leishmaniasis (VL) in immunocompetent patients have been described. Both patients lived in endemicic areas for leishmaniasis in the south of Italy, tested positive for anti-Leishmania antibodies. A definitive diagnosis of VL was delayed by false negative microscopic examinations. Both patients were treated successfully with liposomal amphotericin B

Bactericidal activity of oxacillin and glycopeptides against <it>Staphylococcus aureus </it>in patients with endocarditis: Looking for a relationship between tolerance and outcome

Abstract Background There is no clear relationship between in vitro bactericidal activity tests and clinical outcome. We studied bactericidal activity of oxacillin, vancomycin and teicoplanin against Staphylococcus aureus isolates in patients with endocarditis and then we sought to determine if there was a relationship between in vitro bactericidal activity and clinical outcome. Methods Minimal bacteriostatic and minimal bactericidal concentrations were determined for Staphylococcus aureus strains isolated from patients with endocarditis following standardized methods. Medical records were reviewed retrospectively to collect data on antimicrobial susceptibility at admission, antimicrobial therapy, need for surgery, embolic events and outcome. Results and Discussion Sixty-two Staphylococcus aureus strains were studied in 62 patients with endocarditis. Overall, 91.9% definite, 21% methicillin resistant and 72.6% cured. Surgery was performed in 32.3% and embolic events were documented in 64.5%. Tolerance to oxacillin and teicoplanin was more common than vancomycin tolerance among methicillin susceptible Staphylococcus aureus. Among methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus teicoplanin was shown to have a higher rate of tolerance than vancomycin. No statistically significant differences on clinical outcome between oxacillin tolerant and oxacillin non tolerant Staphylococcus aureus infections were observed. Tolerance to oxacillin did not adversely affect clinical outcomes of patients with methicillin susceptible Staphylococcus aureus endocarditis treated with a combination of antimicrobials including oxacillin. The cure rate was significantly lower among patients with methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus endocarditis. Conclusions In vitro bactericidal test results were not valid predictors of clinical outcome. Physicians need to use additional parameters when treating patients with staphylococcal endocarditis.</p

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