“It ain't over … till it's over!” Risk-mitigation strategies for patients with gastrointestinal diseases in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic

The available COVID-19 literature has focused on specific disease manifestations, infection control, and delivery or prioritization of services for specific patient groups in the setting of the acute COVID-19 pandemic. Local health systems aim to contain the COVID-19 pandemic and hospitals and health-care providers rush to provide the capacity for a surge of COVID-19 patients. However, the short, medium-term, and long-term outcomes of patients with gastrointestinal (GI) diseases without COVID-19 will be affected by the ability to develop locally adapted strategies to meet their service needs in the COVID-19 setting. To mitigate risks for patients with GI diseases, it is useful to differentiate three phases: (i) the acute phase, (ii) the adaptation phase, and (iii) the consolidation phase. During the acute phase, service delivery for patients with GI disease will be curtailed to meet competing health-care needs of COVID-19 patients. During the adaptation phase, GI services are calibrated towards a “new normal,” and the consolidation phase is characterized by rapid introduction and ongoing refinement of services. Proactive planning with engagement of relevant stakeholders including consumer representatives is required to be prepared for a variety of scenarios that are dictated by thus far undefined long-term economic and societal impacts of the pandemic. Because substantial changes to the delivery of services are likely to occur, it is important that these changes are embedded into quality and research frameworks to ensure that data are generated that support evidence-based decision-making during the adaptation and consolidation phases

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