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

Biodiversity Conservation and the UN's Sustainable Development Goals: India's Responses Evaluated - Particularly in Relation to SDG15

Agenda 2030 of the UN sets out 17 goals for achieving sustainable development by 2030 as well as several targets that should be met in order to achieve each of these goals. The aspirational goals and targets in Agenda 2030 are broader than those in the preceding set of its Millennium Development Goals. In this chapter, the value and limitations of the UN’s goal for sustaining life on earth (SDG15) (and its associated targets) are examined. The challenges of making the targets operational are discussed, and particular attention is given to India’s efforts to quantitatively specify its targets for satisfying SDG15. The prospects of India satisfying SDG15 and the adequacy of the targets which it has set itself for doing so are given special attention. The ability of India to meet the SDGs generally is considered also in introducing this chapter

Psychological Changes in Melanoma Patients During Ipilimumab Treatment Compared to Low-Dose Interferon Alpha Therapy-A Follow-Up Study of First Experiences.

Immuntherapies are frequently accompanied by psychological side effects. Our goals were to detect the changes of psychological factors (depression, anxiety) among melanoma patients during ipilimumab treatment. Ten ipilimumab treated melanoma patients (Group 1.) and 18 low-dose interferon-alpha treated patients (Group 2.) were compared. In our longitudinal study we measured depression (Zung Self-Rating Depression Scale) and anxiety (State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, STAI). Psychological status was tested four times: in every 3 week during ipilimumab treatment according to the relevant treatment protocol and at baseline, 1st, 3rd and 6th month of interferon therapy. No significant differences were detected at different timepoints in the level of depression or in the anxiety scale in Group 1. However significant increase of depression was found in Group 2 during the 6 months of the study. Increased levels of anxiety were found in the second timepoint in both treatment groups. This increase was only temporary and the level of anxiety returned to the baseline. In our sample no measurable psychological differences were detectable during the 12 weeks treatment period of ipilimumab. Ipilimumab seems to have fewer psychological side-effects compared to other immune therapies