Emission features in a B[e] binary system V2028 Cyg

We present a preliminary analysis of our six-year observation campaign of the B[e] stellar system V2028 Cyg (MWC 623). The time variability of spectral features is described

B[e] Phenomenon in a Binary System V2028 Cyg

We present a preliminary analysis of our five-years observation campaign of the B[e] stellar system V2028 Cyg (MWC 623). The time variability of spectral features is described

Noninvasive Immunohistochemical Diagnosis and Novel MUC1 Mutations Causing Autosomal Dominant Tubulointerstitial Kidney Disease

Background Autosomal dominant tubulointerstitial kidney disease caused by mucin-1 gene (MUC1) mutations (ADTKD-MUC1) is characterized by progressive kidney failure. Genetic evaluation for ADTKD-MUC1 specifically tests for a cytosine duplication that creates a unique frameshift protein (MUC1fs). Our goal was to develop immunohistochemical methods to detect the MUC1fs created by the cytosine duplication and, possibly, by other similar frameshift mutations and to identify novel MUC1 mutations in individuals with positive immunohistochemical staining for the MUC1fs protein. Methods We performed MUC1fs immunostaining on urinary cell smears and various tissues from ADTKD-MUC1-positive and -negative controls as well as in individuals from 37 ADTKD families that were negative for mutations in known ADTKD genes. We used novel analytic methods to identify MUC1 frameshift mutations. Results After technique refinement, the sensitivity and specificity for MUC1fs immunostaining of urinary cell smears were 94.2% and 88.6%, respectively. Further genetic testing on 17 families with positive MUC1fs immunostaining revealed six families with five novel MUC1 frameshift mutations that all predict production of the identical MUC1fs protein. Conclusions We developed a noninvasive immunohistochemical method to detect MUC1fs that, after further validation, may be useful in the future for diagnostic testing. Production of the MUC1fs protein may be central to the pathogenesis of ADTKD-MUC1

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field