A Systematic Review of Mosquito Coils and Passive Emanators: Defining Recommendations for Spatial Repellency Testing Methodologies.

Mosquito coils, vaporizer mats and emanators confer protection against mosquito bites through the spatial action of emanated vapor or airborne pyrethroid particles. These products dominate the pest control market; therefore, it is vital to characterize mosquito responses elicited by the chemical actives and their potential for disease prevention. The aim of this review was to determine effects of mosquito coils and emanators on mosquito responses that reduce human-vector contact and to propose scientific consensus on terminologies and methodologies used for evaluation of product formats that could contain spatial chemical actives, including indoor residual spraying (IRS), long lasting insecticide treated nets (LLINs) and insecticide treated materials (ITMs). PubMed, (National Centre for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), U.S. National Library of Medicine, NIH), MEDLINE, LILAC, Cochrane library, IBECS and Armed Forces Pest Management Board Literature Retrieval System search engines were used to identify studies of pyrethroid based coils and emanators with key-words "Mosquito coils" "Mosquito emanators" and "Spatial repellents". It was concluded that there is need to improve statistical reporting of studies, and reach consensus in the methodologies and terminologies used through standardized testing guidelines. Despite differing evaluation methodologies, data showed that coils and emanators induce mortality, deterrence, repellency as well as reduce the ability of mosquitoes to feed on humans. Available data on efficacy outdoors, dose-response relationships and effective distance of coils and emanators is inadequate for developing a target product profile (TPP), which will be required for such chemicals before optimized implementation can occur for maximum benefits in disease control

The monoclonal antibody EPR1614Y against the stem cell biomarker keratin K15 lacks specificity and reacts with other keratins

Keratin 15 (K15), a type I keratin, which pairs with K5 in epidermis, has been used extensively as a biomarker for stem cells. Two commercial antibodies, LHK15, a mouse monoclonal and EPR1614Y, a rabbit monoclonal, have been widely employed to study K15 expression. Here we report differential reactivity of these antibodies on epithelial cells and tissue sections. Although the two antibodies specifically recognised K15 on western blot, they reacted differently on skin sections and cell lines. LHK15 reacted in patches, whereas EPR1614Y reacted homogenously with the basal keratinocytes in skin sections. In cultured cells, LHK15 did not react with K15 deficient NEB-1, KEB-11, MCF-7 and SW13 cells expressing only exogenous K8 and K18 but reacted when these cells were transduced with K15. On the other hand, EPR1614Y reacted with these cells even though they were devoid of K15. Taken together these results suggest that EPR1614Y recognises a conformational epitope on keratin filaments which can be reconstituted by other keratins as well as by K15. In conclusion, this report highlights that all commercially available antibodies may not be equally specific in identifying the K15 positive stem cell

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