Dual clumped isotope thermometry resolves kinetic biases in carbonate formation temperatures

© The Author(s), 2020. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. The definitive version was published in Bajnai, D., Guo, W., Spötl, C., Coplen, T. B., Methner, K., Löffler, N., Krsnik, E., Gischler, E., Hansen, M., Henkel, D., Price, G. D., Raddatz, J., Scholz, D., & Fiebig, J. Dual clumped isotope thermometry resolves kinetic biases in carbonate formation temperatures. Nature Communications, 11(1), (2020): 4005, doi:10.1038/s41467-020-17501-0.Surface temperature is a fundamental parameter of Earth’s climate. Its evolution through time is commonly reconstructed using the oxygen isotope and the clumped isotope compositions of carbonate archives. However, reaction kinetics involved in the precipitation of carbonates can introduce inaccuracies in the derived temperatures. Here, we show that dual clumped isotope analyses, i.e., simultaneous ∆47 and ∆48 measurements on the single carbonate phase, can identify the origin and quantify the extent of these kinetic biases. Our results verify theoretical predictions and evidence that the isotopic disequilibrium commonly observed in speleothems and scleractinian coral skeletons is inherited from the dissolved inorganic carbon pool of their parent solutions. Further, we show that dual clumped isotope thermometry can achieve reliable palaeotemperature reconstructions, devoid of kinetic bias. Analysis of a belemnite rostrum implies that it precipitated near isotopic equilibrium and confirms the warmer-than-present temperatures during the Early Cretaceous at southern high latitudes.This work became possible through DFG grant “INST 161/871-1” and the Investment in Science Fund at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. The authors would like to thank Sven Hofmann and Manuel Schumann for their assistance in the joint Goethe University – Senckenberg BiK-F Stable Isotope Facility at the Institute of Geosciences, Goethe University Frankfurt. K.M. acknowledges funding through “DFG ME 4955/1-1”, E.K. through “DFG MU 2845/6-1”, D.S. through “DFG SCHO 1274/8-1” and “DFG SCHO 1274/11-1”, and M.H. through “DFG HA 8694/1-1”. C.S. acknowledges funding from the University of Innsbruck. A review of the manuscript by David Evans on behalf of the USGS is acknowledged

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