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

Clustering of Social Determinants of Health Among Patients

Introduction/Objectives: Many health systems screen patients for social determinants of health and refer patients with social needs to community organizations for assistance. Understanding how social determinants cluster together may help guide assistance programs. Methods: This study examined patients screened by The MetroHealth System in Cleveland, Ohio for 9 social determinants, including food insecurity, financial strain, transportation limitations, inability to pay for housing or utilities, intimate partner violence, social isolation, infrequent physical activity, daily stress, and lack of internet access. Clustering analyses were performed to determine which combination of social determinants occurred together more often than would be expected if each determinant were independent of each other. Results: Among 23 161 screened patients, there were 19 dyads, 13 triads, and one tetrad of social determinants that clustered together. The most prevalent triad of food insecurity, social isolation, and inability to pay for housing or utilities occurred among 1095 patients but would be expected to occur among 284 patients, for an observed/expected ratio of 3.85 (95% confidence interval 3.64-4.07). In multivariate analyses, younger, Black, and lower income patients were 2 to 3 times more likely to have this triad compared to older, White, and wealthier patients. Conclusions: Social determinants of health frequently cluster together, and such clustering is associated with patient demographic characteristics. Further work is needed to determine how social determinant clusters impact health and cost outcomes and to develop programs that can address multiple co-existing social needs

Changes in Characteristics and Treatment Patterns of Patients with Newly Diagnosed Type 2 Diabetes in a Large United States Integrated Health System between 2008 and 2013

To assess changes in the clinical characteristics and treatment patterns of patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes (T2D), the electronic health record system at Cleveland Clinic was used to create cross-sectional summaries of all patients with new-onset T2D in 2008 and 2013. Differences between the 2008 and 2013 data sets were assessed after adjusting for age, gender, race, and income. Approximately one-third of patients with newly diagnosed T2D in 2008 and 2013 had an A1C ≤8%, suggesting the continued presence of a delayed recognition of the disease. Patients with newly diagnosed T2D in 2008 were older than those in 2013. Hypertension, cardiovascular disease, and neuropathy were highly prevalent among patients diagnosed with T2D. The prevalence of neuropathy, cerebrovascular disease, and peripheral vascular disease increased from 2008 to 2013. Metformin was the most commonly prescribed antidiabetic medication. Sulfonylurea usage remained unchanged, while use of thiazolidinediones decreased considerably