Greater Expectations?

Physically Unclonable Functions (PUFs) are key tools in the construction of lightweight authentication and key exchange protocols. So far, all existing PUF-based authentication protocols follow the same paradigm: A resource-constrained prover, holding a PUF, wants to authenticate to a resource-rich verifier, who has access to a database of pre-measured PUF challenge-response pairs (CRPs). In this paper we consider application scenarios where all previous PUF-based authentication schemes fail to work: The verifier is resource-constrained (and holds a PUF), while the prover is resource-rich (and holds a CRP-database). We construct the first and efficient PUF-based authentication protocol for this setting, which we call converse PUF-based authentication. We provide an extensive security analysis against passive adversaries, show that a minor modification also allows for authenticated key exchange and propose a concrete instantiation using controlled Arbiter PUFs

Pseudo Identities Based on Fingerprint Characteristics

This paper presents the integrated project TURBINE which is funded under the EU 7th research framework programme. This research is a multi-disciplinary effort on privacy enhancing technology, combining innovative developments in cryptography and fingerprint recognition. The objective of this project is to provide a breakthrough in electronic authentication for various applications in the physical world and on the Internet. On the one hand it will provide secure identity verification thanks to fingerprint recognition. On the other hand it will reliably protect the biometric data through advanced cryptography technology. In concrete terms, it will provide the assurance that (i) the data used for the authentication, generated from the fingerprint, cannot be used to restore the original fingerprint sample, (ii) the individual will be able to create different "pseudo-identities" for different applications with the same fingerprint, whilst ensuring that these different identities (and hence the related personal data) cannot be linked to each other, and (iii) the individual is enabled to revoke an biometric identifier (pseudo-identity) for a given application in case it should not be used anymore

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition)

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. For example, 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 versus those that measure fl ux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process including the amount and rate of cargo sequestered and degraded). In particular, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation must be differentiated from stimuli that increase autophagic activity, defi ned as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (inmost 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 fi eld 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. It is worth emphasizing here that lysosomal digestion is a stage of autophagy and evaluating its competence is a crucial part of the evaluation of autophagic flux, or complete autophagy. 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. Along these lines, because of the potential for pleiotropic effects due to blocking autophagy through genetic manipulation it is imperative to delete or knock down more than one autophagy-related gene. In addition, some individual Atg proteins, or groups of proteins, are involved in other cellular pathways so not all Atg proteins can be used as a specific marker for an autophagic process. 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

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

Pathogenic Role of Associated Adherent-Invasive Escherichia coli in Crohn's Disease

Several lines of evidence suggest that adherent-invasive Escherichia coli (AIEC) strains play an important role in Crohn's disease (CD). The objective of this study was to investigate the pathogenic role of two AIEC strains, LF82 and O83:H1, in CD patients. Organ cultures of colonic biopsies from patients were set up to assess the effects of LF82 and O83:H1 on the expression of CEACAM6, LAMP1, HLA-DR, ICAM1 by immunohistochemistry and of IL-8, IFNʏ, and TNF-α genes by RT-PCR. Moreover, on Caco2 cells, we analyzed the cell cycle, the expression of MGMT and DNMT1 genes, and DNA damage induced by LF82 and O83:H1, by FACS, RT-PCR, and DAPI staining, respectively. Epithelial and lamina propria mononuclear cells (LPMNC) expression of CEACAM6 and LAMP1 were higher in biopsies cultured in the presence of both O83:H1 and LF82 than in biopsies cultured with non-pathogenic E. coli. Both AIEC strains induced increased expression of ICAM-1 on blood vessels and HLA-DR on LPMNC. We observed higher levels of TNF-α, IFN-γ, and IL-8 transcripts in biopsies cultured with both AIEC strains than in those cultured with NP. Both LF82 and O83:H1, block the cell cycle into S phase, inducing DNA damage, and modulate the expression of DNMT1 and MGMT genes. Our data suggest that LF82 and 083:H1 strains of E. coli are able to increase in CD colonic biopsies the expression of all the pro-inflammatory cytokines and all the mucosal immune markers investigated. J. Cell. Physiol. 232: 2860–2868, 2017. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.SCOPUS: ar.jinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe