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

The CODATwins Project: The Current Status and Recent Findings of COllaborative Project of Development of Anthropometrical Measures in Twins

The COllaborative project of Development of Anthropometrical measures in Twins (CODATwins) project is a large international collaborative effort to analyze individual-level phenotype data from twins in multiple cohorts from different environments. The main objective is to study factors that modify genetic and environmental variation of height, body mass index (BMI, kg/m2) and size at birth, and additionally to address other research questions such as long-term consequences of birth size. The project started in 2013 and is open to all twin projects in the world having height and weight measures on twins with information on zygosity. Thus far, 54 twin projects from 24 countries have provided individual-level data. The CODATwins database includes 489,981 twin individuals (228,635 complete twin pairs). Since many twin cohorts have collected longitudinal data, there is a total of 1,049,785 height and weight observations. For many cohorts, we also have information on birth weight and length, own smoking behavior and own or parental education. We found that the heritability estimates of height and BMI systematically changed from infancy to old age. Remarkably, only minor differences in the heritability estimates were found across cultural-geographic regions, measurement time and birth cohort for height and BMI. In addition to genetic epidemiological studies, we looked at associations of height and BMI with education, birth weight and smoking status. Within-family analyses examined differences within same-sex and opposite-sex dizygotic twins in birth size and later development. The CODATwins project demonstrates the feasibility and value of international collaboration to address gene-by-exposure interactions that require large sample sizes and address the effects of different exposures across time, geographical regions and socioeconomic status

A bivalent meningococcal B vaccine in adolescents and young adults

BACKGROUND MenB-FHbp is a licensed meningococcal B vaccine targeting factor H-binding protein. Two phase 3 studies assessed the safety of the vaccine and its immunogenicity against diverse strains of group B meningococcus. METHODS We randomly assigned 3596 adolescents (10 to 18 years of age) to receive MenB-FHbp or hepatitis A virus vaccine and saline and assigned 3304 young adults (18 to 25 years of age) to receive MenB-FHbp or saline at baseline, 2 months, and 6 months. Immunogenicity was assessed in serum bactericidal assays that included human complement (hSBAs). We used 14 meningococcal B test strains that expressed vaccine-heterologous factor H-binding proteins representative of meningococcal B epidemiologic diversity; an hSBA titer of at least 1:4 is the accepted correlate of protection. The five primary end points were the proportion of participants who had an increase in their hSBA titer for each of 4 primary strains by a factor of 4 or more and the proportion of those who had an hSBA titer at least as high as the lower limit of quantitation (1:8 or 1:16) for all 4 strains combined after dose 3. We also assessed the hSBA responses to the primary strains after dose 2; hSBA responses to the 10 additional strains after doses 2 and 3 were assessed in a subgroup of participants only. Safety was assessed in participants who received at least one dose. RESULTS In the modified intention-to-treat population, the percentage of adolescents who had an increase in the hSBA titer by a factor of 4 or more against each primary strain ranged from 56.0 to 85.3% after dose 2 and from 78.8 to 90.2% after dose 3; the percentages of young adults ranged from 54.6 to 85.6% and 78.9 to 89.7%, after doses 2 and 3, respectively. Composite responses after doses 2 and 3 in adolescents were 53.7% and 82.7%, respectively, and those in young adults were 63.3% and 84.5%, respectively. Responses to the 4 primary strains were predictive of responses to the 10 additional strains. Most of those who received MenB-FHbp reported mild or moderate pain at the vaccination site. CONCLUSIONS MenB-FHbp elicited bactericidal responses against diverse meningococcal B strains after doses 2 and 3 and was associated with more reactions at the injection site than the hepatitis A virus vaccine and saline. (Funded by Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT01830855 and NCT01352845.)