Comparison of diffusion-weighted MRI acquisition techniques for normal pancreas at 3.0 Tesla

PURPOSEWe aimed to optimize diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) acquisitions for normal pancreas at 3.0 Tesla.MATERIALS AND METHODSThirty healthy volunteers were examined using four DWI acquisition techniques with b values of 0 and 600 s/mm2 at 3.0 Tesla, including breath-hold DWI, respiratory-triggered DWI, respiratory-triggered DWI with inversion recovery (IR), and free-breathing DWI with IR. Artifacts, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) of normal pancreas were statistically evaluated among different DWI acquisitions.RESULTSStatistical differences were noticed in artifacts, SNR, and ADC values of normal pancreas among different DWI acquisitions by ANOVA (P < 0.001). Normal pancreas imaging had the lowest artifact in respiratory-triggered DWI with IR, the highest SNR in respiratory-triggered DWI, and the highest ADC value in free-breathing DWI with IR. The head, body, and tail of normal pancreas had statistically different ADC values on each DWI acquisition by ANOVA (P < 0.05).CONCLUSIONThe highest image quality for normal pancreas was obtained using respiratory-triggered DWI with IR. Normal pancreas displayed inhomogeneous ADC values along the head, body, and tail structures

Robust estimation of bacterial cell count from optical density

Optical density (OD) is widely used to estimate the density of cells in liquid culture, but cannot be compared between instruments without a standardized calibration protocol and is challenging to relate to actual cell count. We address this with an interlaboratory study comparing three simple, low-cost, and highly accessible OD calibration protocols across 244 laboratories, applied to eight strains of constitutive GFP-expressing E. coli. Based on our results, we recommend calibrating OD to estimated cell count using serial dilution of silica microspheres, which produces highly precise calibration (95.5% of residuals &lt;1.2-fold), is easily assessed for quality control, also assesses instrument effective linear range, and can be combined with fluorescence calibration to obtain units of Molecules of Equivalent Fluorescein (MEFL) per cell, allowing direct comparison and data fusion with flow cytometry measurements: in our study, fluorescence per cell measurements showed only a 1.07-fold mean difference between plate reader and flow cytometry data

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