Cucurbit[n]uril-Based Microcapsules Self-Assembled within Microfluidic Droplets: A Versatile Approach for Supramolecular Architectures and Materials.

Microencapsulation is a fundamental concept behind a wide range of daily applications ranging from paints, adhesives, and pesticides to targeted drug delivery, transport of vaccines, and self-healing concretes. The beauty of microfluidics to generate microcapsules arises from the capability of fabricating monodisperse and micrometer-scale droplets, which can lead to microcapsules/particles with fine-tuned control over size, shape, and hierarchical structure, as well as high reproducibility, efficient material usage, and high-throughput manipulation. The introduction of supramolecular chemistry, such as host-guest interactions, endows the resultant microcapsules with stimuli-responsiveness and self-adjusting capabilities, and facilitates hierarchical microstructures with tunable stability and porosity, leading to the maturity of current microencapsulation industry. Supramolecular architectures and materials have attracted immense attention over the past decade, as they open the possibility to obtain a large variety of aesthetically pleasing structures, with myriad applications in biomedicine, energy, sensing, catalysis, and biomimicry, on account of the inherent reversible and adaptive nature of supramolecular interactions. As a subset of supramolecular interactions, host-guest molecular recognition involves the formation of inclusion complexes between two or more moieties, with specific three-dimensional structures and spatial arrangements, in a highly controllable and cooperative manner. Such highly selective, strong yet dynamic interactions could be exploited as an alternative methodology for programmable and controllable engineering of supramolecular architectures and materials, exploiting reversible interactions between complementary components. Through the engineering of molecular structures, assemblies can be readily functionalized based on host-guest interactions, with desirable physicochemical characteristics. In this Account, we summarize the current state of development in the field of monodisperse supramolecular microcapsules, fabricated through the integration of traditional microfluidic techniques and interfacial host-guest chemistry, specifically cucurbit[n]uril (CB[n])-mediated host-guest interactions. Three different strategies, colloidal particle-driven assembly, interfacial condensation-driven assembly and electrostatic interaction-driven assembly, are classified and discussed in detail, presenting the methodology involved in each microcapsule formation process. We highlight the state-of-the-art in design and control over structural complexity with desirable functionality, as well as promising applications, such as cargo delivery stemming from the assembled microcapsules. On account of its dynamic nature, the CB[n]-mediated host-guest complexation has demonstrated efficient response toward various external stimuli such as UV light, pH change, redox chemistry, and competitive guests. Herein, we also demonstrate different microcapsule modalities, which are engineered with CB[n] host-guest chemistry and also can be disrupted with the aid of external stimuli, for triggered release of payloads. In addition to the overview of recent achievements and current limitations of these microcapsules, we finally summarize several perspectives on tunable cargo loading and triggered release, directions, and challenges for this technology, as well as possible strategies for further improvement, which will lead to substainitial progress of host-guest chemistry in supramolecular architectures and materials.J.L. is financially supported by the Marie Curie FP7 SASSYPOL ITN (607602) programme. C.S.Y.T. thanks the Ministry of Education of Malaysia and Universiti Teknologi MARA for their financial support. Z.Y. and C.A. were in receipt of funding from BBSRC sLoLa award reference BB/L002957/1, EPSRC and Institutional Sponsorship 2012-University of Cambridge EP/ K503496/1 and the Translational Grant EP/H046593/1. O.A.S thanks the EPRSC (EP/F0355351 and EP/G060649/1) and the ERC (ASPiRe, 240629) for their funding

Emerging Two-Dimensional Crystallization of Cucurbit[8]uril Complexes: From Supramolecular Polymers to Nanofibers.

The binding of imidazolium salts to cucurbit[8]uril, CB[8], triggers a stepwise self-assembly process with semiflexible polymer chains and crystalline nanostructures as early- and late-stage species, respectively. In such a process, which involves the crystallization of the host-guest complexes, the guest plays a critical role in directing self-assembly toward desirable morphologies. These include platelet-like aggregates and two-dimensional (2D) fibers, which, moreover, exhibit viscoelastic and lyotropic properties. Our observations provide a deeper understanding of the self-assembly of CB[8] complexes, with fundamental implications in the design of functional 2D systems and crystalline materials.EPSRC (reference no. EP/ G060649/1), ERC Starting Investigator Grant (project no. 240629, ASPiRe) Next Generation Fellowship from the Walters-Kundert Foundation. MINE- CO, the FSE and the FEDER for funding through projects RYC-2015-18471 (Ramoń y Cajal program) and CTQ2017- 84087-R. Royal Society University Research Fellowship UF160152. EPSRC CDT in Nanoscience and Nanotechnology (NanoDTC), grant number EP/L015978/1

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

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. 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 vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most 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 field 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. 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. 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

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. 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 vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most 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 field 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. 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. 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

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. 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 vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most 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 field 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. 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. 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

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. 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 vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most 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 field 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. 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. 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