Towards the new Thematic Core Service Tsunami within the EPOS Research Infrastructure

Tsunamis constitute a significant hazard for European coastal populations, and the impact of tsunami events worldwide can extend well beyond the coastal regions directly affected. Understanding the complex mechanisms of tsunami generation, propagation, and inundation, as well as managing the tsunami risk, requires multidisciplinary research and infrastructures that cross national boundaries. Recent decades have seen both great advances in tsunami science and consolidation of the European tsunami research community. A recurring theme has been the need for a sustainable platform for coordinated tsunami community activities and a hub for tsunami services. Following about three years of preparation, in July 2021, the European tsunami community attained the status of Candidate Thematic Core Service (cTCS) within the European Plate Observing System (EPOS) Research Infrastructure. Within a transition period of three years, the Tsunami candidate TCS is anticipated to develop into a fully operational EPOS TCS. We here outline the path taken to reach this point, and the envisaged form of the future EPOS TCS Tsunami. Our cTCS is planned to be organised within four thematic pillars: (1) Support to Tsunami Service Providers, (2) Tsunami Data, (3) Numerical Models, and (4) Hazard and Risk Products. We outline how identified needs in tsunami science and tsunami risk mitigation will be addressed within this structure and how participation within EPOS will become an integration point for community development

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

Differential predictors for alcohol use in adolescents as a function of familial risk

Abstract: Traditional models of future alcohol use in adolescents have used variable-centered approaches, predicting alcohol use from a set of variables across entire samples or populations. Following the proposition that predictive factors may vary in adolescents as a function of family history, we used a two-pronged approach by first defining clusters of familial risk, followed by prediction analyses within each cluster. Thus, for the first time in adolescents, we tested whether adolescents with a family history of drug abuse exhibit a set of predictors different from adolescents without a family history. We apply this approach to a genetic risk score and individual differences in personality, cognition, behavior (risk-taking and discounting) substance use behavior at age 14, life events, and functional brain imaging, to predict scores on the alcohol use disorders identification test (AUDIT) at age 14 and 16 in a sample of adolescents (N = 1659 at baseline, N = 1327 at follow-up) from the IMAGEN cohort, a longitudinal community-based cohort of adolescents. In the absence of familial risk (n = 616), individual differences in baseline drinking, personality measures (extraversion, negative thinking), discounting behaviors, life events, and ventral striatal activation during reward anticipation were significantly associated with future AUDIT scores, while the overall model explained 22% of the variance in future AUDIT. In the presence of familial risk (n = 711), drinking behavior at age 14, personality measures (extraversion, impulsivity), behavioral risk-taking, and life events were significantly associated with future AUDIT scores, explaining 20.1% of the overall variance. Results suggest that individual differences in personality, cognition, life events, brain function, and drinking behavior contribute differentially to the prediction of future alcohol misuse. This approach may inform more individualized preventive interventions

Differential predictors for alcohol use in adolescents as a function of familial risk

Abstract: Traditional models of future alcohol use in adolescents have used variable-centered approaches, predicting alcohol use from a set of variables across entire samples or populations. Following the proposition that predictive factors may vary in adolescents as a function of family history, we used a two-pronged approach by first defining clusters of familial risk, followed by prediction analyses within each cluster. Thus, for the first time in adolescents, we tested whether adolescents with a family history of drug abuse exhibit a set of predictors different from adolescents without a family history. We apply this approach to a genetic risk score and individual differences in personality, cognition, behavior (risk-taking and discounting) substance use behavior at age 14, life events, and functional brain imaging, to predict scores on the alcohol use disorders identification test (AUDIT) at age 14 and 16 in a sample of adolescents (N = 1659 at baseline, N = 1327 at follow-up) from the IMAGEN cohort, a longitudinal community-based cohort of adolescents. In the absence of familial risk (n = 616), individual differences in baseline drinking, personality measures (extraversion, negative thinking), discounting behaviors, life events, and ventral striatal activation during reward anticipation were significantly associated with future AUDIT scores, while the overall model explained 22% of the variance in future AUDIT. In the presence of familial risk (n = 711), drinking behavior at age 14, personality measures (extraversion, impulsivity), behavioral risk-taking, and life events were significantly associated with future AUDIT scores, explaining 20.1% of the overall variance. Results suggest that individual differences in personality, cognition, life events, brain function, and drinking behavior contribute differentially to the prediction of future alcohol misuse. This approach may inform more individualized preventive interventions