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

Enterovirus D68 outbreak detection through a syndromic disease epidemiology network

© 2020 Background: In 2014, enterovirus D68 (EV-D68) was responsible for an outbreak of severe respiratory illness in children, with 1,153 EV-D68 cases reported across 49 states. Despite this, there is no commercial assay for its detection in routine clinical care. BioFire® Syndromic Trends (Trend) is an epidemiological network that collects, in near real-time, deidentified. BioFire test results worldwide, including data from the BioFire® Respiratory Panel (RP). Objectives: Using the RP version 1.7 (which was not explicitly designed to differentiate EV-D68 from other picornaviruses), we formulate a model, Pathogen Extended Resolution (PER), to distinguish EV-D68 from other human rhinoviruses/enteroviruses (RV/EV) tested for in the panel. Using PER in conjunction with Trend, we survey for historical evidence of EVD68 positivity and demonstrate a method for prospective real-time outbreak monitoring within the network. Study design: PER incorporates real-time polymerase chain reaction metrics from the RPRV/EV assays. Six institutions in the United States and Europe contributed to the model creation, providing data from 1,619 samples spanning two years, confirmed by EV-D68 gold-standard molecular methods. We estimate outbreak periods by applying PER to over 600,000 historical Trend RP tests since 2014. Additionally, we used PER as a prospective monitoring tool during the 2018 outbreak. Results: The final PER algorithm demonstrated an overall sensitivity and specificity of 87.1% and 86.1%, respectively, among the gold-standard dataset. During the 2018 outbreak monitoring period, PER alerted the research network of EV-D68 emergence in July. One of the first sites to experience a significant increase, Nationwide Children\u27s Hospital, confirmed the outbreak and implemented EV-D68 testing at the institution in response. Applying PER to the historical Trend dataset to determine rates among RP tests, we find three potential outbreaks with predicted regional EV-D68 rates as high as 37% in 2014, 16% in 2016, and 29% in 2018. Conclusions: Using PER within the Trend network was shown to both accurately predict outbreaks of EV-D68 and to provide timely notifications of its circulation to participating clinical laboratorie