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

Imaging of the Muscle-Bone Relationship

Muscle can be assessed by imaging techniques according to its size (as thickness, area, volume, or alternatively, as a mass) and architecture (fiber length and pennation angle), with values used as an anthropometric measure or a surrogate for force production. Similarly, the size of the bone (as area or volume) can be imaged using MRI or pQCT, although typically bone mineral mass is reported. Bone imaging measures of mineral density, size, and geometry can also be combined to calculate bone’s structural strength—measures being highly predictive of bone’s failure load ex vivo. Imaging of muscle-bone relationships can, hence, be accomplished through a number of approaches by adoption and comparison of these different muscle and bone parameters, dependent on the research question under investigation. These approaches have revealed evidence of direct, mechanical muscle-bone interactions independent of allometric associations. They have led to important information on bone mechanoadaptation and the influence of muscular action on bone, in addition to influences of age, gender, exercise, and disuse on muscle-bone relationships. Such analyses have also produced promising diagnostic tools for clinical use, such as identification of primary, disuse-induced, and secondary osteoporosis and estimation of bone safety factors. Standardization of muscle-bone imaging methods is required to permit more reliable comparisons between studies and differing imaging modes, and in particular to aid adoption of these methods into widespread clinical practice

International Consensus Statement on Rhinology and Allergy: Rhinosinusitis

Background: The 5 years since the publication of the first International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Rhinosinusitis (ICAR‐RS) has witnessed foundational progress in our understanding and treatment of rhinologic disease. These advances are reflected within the more than 40 new topics covered within the ICAR‐RS‐2021 as well as updates to the original 140 topics. This executive summary consolidates the evidence‐based findings of the document. Methods: ICAR‐RS presents over 180 topics in the forms of evidence‐based reviews with recommendations (EBRRs), evidence‐based reviews, and literature reviews. The highest grade structured recommendations of the EBRR sections are summarized in this executive summary. Results: ICAR‐RS‐2021 covers 22 topics regarding the medical management of RS, which are grade A/B and are presented in the executive summary. Additionally, 4 topics regarding the surgical management of RS are grade A/B and are presented in the executive summary. Finally, a comprehensive evidence‐based management algorithm is provided. Conclusion: This ICAR‐RS‐2021 executive summary provides a compilation of the evidence‐based recommendations for medical and surgical treatment of the most common forms of RS

Measurement of the cross-section for electroweak production of dijets in association with a Z boson in pp collisions at s√=13TeV with the ATLAS detector

The cross-section for the production of two jets in association with a leptonically decaying Z boson (Zjj) is measured in proton–proton collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 13 TeV, using data recorded with the ATLAS detector at the Large Hadron Collider, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 3.2 fb−1. The electroweak Zjj cross-section is extracted in a fiducial region chosen to enhance the electroweak contribution relative to the dominant Drell–Yan Zjj process, which is constrained using a data-driven approach. The measured fiducial electroweak cross-section is σEW Zjj = 119±16(stat.)±20(syst.)±2(lumi.) fb for dijet invariant mass greater than 250 GeV, and 34.2±5.8(stat.)±5.5(syst.)±0.7(lumi.) fb for dijet invariant mass greater than 1 TeV. Standard Model predictions are in agreement with the measurements. The inclusive Zjj cross-section is also measured in six different fiducial regions with varying contributions from electroweak and Drell–Yan Zjj production