A survey of parametric modelling methods for designing the head of a high-speed train

With the continuous increase of the running speed, the head shape of the high-speed train (HST) turns out to be a critical factor for further speed boost. In order to cut down the time used in the HST head design and improve the modelling efficiency, various parametric modelling methods have been widely applied in the optimization design of the HST head to obtain an optimal head shape so that the aerodynamic effect acting on the head of HSTs can be reduced and more energy can be saved. This paper reviews these parametric modelling methods and classifies them into four categories: 2D, 3D, CATIA-based, and mesh deformation-based parametric modelling methods. Each of the methods is introduced, and the advantages and disadvantages of these methods are identified. The simulation results are presented to demonstrate that the aerodynamic performance of the optimal models constructed by these parametric modelling methods has been improved when compared with numerical calculation results of the original models or the prototype models of running trains. Since different parametric modelling methods used different original models and optimization methods, few publications could be found which compare the simulation results of the aerodynamic performance among different parametric modelling methods. In spite of this, these parametric modelling methods indicate more local shape details will lead to more accurate simulation results, and fewer design variables will result in higher computational efficiency. Therefore, the ability of describing more local shape details with fewer design variables could serve as a main specification to assess the performance of various parametric modelling methods. The future research directions may concentrate on how to improve such ability

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

Erratum to: Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition) (Autophagy, 12, 1, 1-222, 10.1080/15548627.2015.1100356

non present