A Journey Across Rivers and Lakes: a Look at the Untranslatable 'Jianghu' in Chinese Culture and Literature

This paper sets out to explore the possibility as well as the impossibility of representing a seemingly untranslatable term: jianghu (江湖), which literally means “rivers and lakes” in the Chinese language. The paper discusses how the term evolves almost like an organic entity of its own, stretching from Chinese literature, cinema to the everyday use of the term as slangs and idioms. By looking at how the term is translated from one language to another, from an ancient context to a (post)modern context, and further away from one generation to another, this paper attempts to study the process of adaptation and translation beyond a linguistic scope, but towards a broader field of literary, cultural and film studies. The paper also examines how the process of translating, adapting and imagining jianghu can be deemed a manifestation of the Derridian concept of “supplementarity”

BIDAIA IBAI ETA LAKUETAN ZEHAR: TXINAKO KULTURA ETA LITERATURAKO 'JIANGHU' ITZULEZINAREN INGURUAN

Aquest article vol explorar la possibilitat, així com la impossibilitat de representació de jianghu (江湖), terme xinès aparentment intraduïble que significa, literalment, “rius i llacs”. L’article analitza la seva evolució cap a una entitat quasi orgànica en ella mateixa, que es projecta des del camp de la literatura i el cinema xinesos cap a un ús quotidià del terme, dins de l’argot i les expressions idiomàtiques. Observant la traducció del terme d’una llengua a una altra, d’un context antic a un context postmodern i d’una generació a una altra, aquest article vol examinar el procés d’adaptació i traducció més enllà del camp de la lingüística, situant-se dins de l’àmbit dels estudis literaris, cinematogràfics i culturals. Finalment, l’article proposa, a partir del procés de traducció, adaptació i conceptualització de jianghu, la possibilitat de considerar-lo una manifestació del concepte derridià de “suplementarietat”.This paper sets out to explore the possibility as well as the impossibility of representing a seemingly untranslatable term: jianghu (江湖), which literally means “rivers and lakes” in the Chinese language. The paper discusses how the term evolves almost like an organic entity of its own, stretching from Chinese literature, cinema to the everyday use of the term as slangs and idioms. By looking at how the term is translated from one language to another, from an ancient context to a (post)modern context, and further away from one generation to another, this paper attempts to study the process of adaptation and translation beyond a linguistic scope, but towards a broader field of literary, cultural and film studies. The paper also examines how the process of translating, adapting and imagining jianghu can be deemed a manifestation of the Derridian concept of “supplementarity”.Este trabajo pretende explorar la posibilidad y, al mismo tiempo, la imposibilidad, de representar un término aparentemente intraducible: jianghu (江湖), que significa, literalmente, «ríos y lagos» en chino. El trabajo comenta cómo el término evoluciona casi como una entidad orgánica en sí misma, que va desde la literatura china y el cine al uso cotidiano del término en jergas y refranes. Al analizar cómo se traduce el término de un idioma a otro, de un contexto antiguo a un contexto (pos)moderno, y de una generación a otra, este trabajo pretende estudiar el proceso de adaptación y traducción más allá de un ámbito lingüístico para incluir el ámbito más amplio de los estudios literarios, culturales y cinematográficos. El papel analiza además cómo el proceso de adaptación, traducción e imaginación de jianghu puede considerarse manifestación del concepto derridiano de «suplementariedad».Artikulu honek itzulezina omen den termino bat adierazteko posibilatea edo ezintasuna ikertzea du helburu, jianghu (江湖) terminoa alegia, txineraz hitzez hitz “ibaiak eta lakuak” esan nahi duena. Artikuluan zehar terminoa bere baitango entitate organiko bat bailitzan nola eboluzionatu duen aurkezten da. Izan ere, txinatar literatura eta zinematik eguneroko hizkuntzako argot eta esamoldeetara hedatu da. Terminoa hizkuntza batetik bestera, antzinako testuingurutik testuinguru (post)modernora eta, are gehiago, belaunaldi batetik bestera itzultzeko moduari erreparatuta, artikuluak moldaketa eta itzulpen prozesua ikertzen du eremu linguistikoaz haratago, literatura, kultura eta zine ikasketen arloei begira. Horrez gain, jianghu terminoaren itzulpen, moldatze eta iruditze prozesua Derridak aurkeztutako “osagarritasuna” kontzeptuaren adierazpentzat har daitekeela azaltzen da

RECORRIDO POR RÍOS Y LAGOS: UNA MIRADA AL 'JIANGHU' INTRADUCIBLE EN LA CULTURA Y LA LITERATURA CHINAS

Este trabajo pretende explorar la posibilidad y, al mismo tiempo, la imposibilidad, de representar un término aparentemente intraducible: jianghu (江湖), que significa, literalmente, «ríos y lagos» en chino. El trabajo comenta cómo el término evoluciona casi como una entidad orgánica en sí misma, que va desde la literatura china y el cine al uso cotidiano del término en jergas y refranes. Al analizar cómo se traduce el término de un idioma a otro, de un contexto antiguo a un contexto (pos)moderno, y de una generación a otra, este trabajo pretende estudiar el proceso de adaptación y traducción más allá de un ámbito lingüístico para incluir el ámbito más amplio de los estudios literarios, culturales y cinematográficos. El papel analiza además cómo el proceso de adaptación, traducción e imaginación de jianghu puede considerarse manifestación del concepto derridiano de «suplementariedad»

Beyond rivers and lakes: a cultural study of jianghu

published_or_final_versionComparative LiteratureMasterMaster of Philosoph

Efficacy and safety of sparsentan versus irbesartan in patients with IgA nephropathy (PROTECT): 2-year results from a randomised, active-controlled, phase 3 trial

BackgroundSparsentan, a novel, non-immunosuppressive, single-molecule, dual endothelin angiotensin receptor antagonist, significantly reduced proteinuria versus irbesartan, an angiotensin II receptor blocker, at 36 weeks (primary endpoint) in patients with immunoglobulin A nephropathy in the phase 3 PROTECT trial's previously reported interim analysis. Here, we report kidney function and outcomes over 110 weeks from the double-blind final analysis.MethodsPROTECT, a double-blind, randomised, active-controlled, phase 3 study, was done across 134 clinical practice sites in 18 countries throughout the Americas, Asia, and Europe. Patients aged 18 years or older with biopsy-proven primary IgA nephropathy and proteinuria of at least 1·0 g per day despite maximised renin–angiotensin system inhibition for at least 12 weeks were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive sparsentan (target dose 400 mg oral sparsentan once daily) or irbesartan (target dose 300 mg oral irbesartan once daily) based on a permuted-block randomisation method. The primary endpoint was proteinuria change between treatment groups at 36 weeks. Secondary endpoints included rate of change (slope) of the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), changes in proteinuria, a composite of kidney failure (confirmed 40% eGFR reduction, end-stage kidney disease, or all-cause mortality), and safety and tolerability up to 110 weeks from randomisation. Secondary efficacy outcomes were assessed in the full analysis set and safety was assessed in the safety set, both of which were defined as all patients who were randomly assigned and received at least one dose of randomly assigned study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03762850.FindingsBetween Dec 20, 2018, and May 26, 2021, 203 patients were randomly assigned to the sparsentan group and 203 to the irbesartan group. One patient from each group did not receive the study drug and was excluded from the efficacy and safety analyses (282 [70%] of 404 included patients were male and 272 [67%] were White) . Patients in the sparsentan group had a slower rate of eGFR decline than those in the irbesartan group. eGFR chronic 2-year slope (weeks 6–110) was −2·7 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year versus −3·8 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year (difference 1·1 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year, 95% CI 0·1 to 2·1; p=0·037); total 2-year slope (day 1–week 110) was −2·9 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year versus −3·9 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year (difference 1·0 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year, 95% CI −0·03 to 1·94; p=0·058). The significant reduction in proteinuria at 36 weeks with sparsentan was maintained throughout the study period; at 110 weeks, proteinuria, as determined by the change from baseline in urine protein-to-creatinine ratio, was 40% lower in the sparsentan group than in the irbesartan group (−42·8%, 95% CI −49·8 to −35·0, with sparsentan versus −4·4%, −15·8 to 8·7, with irbesartan; geometric least-squares mean ratio 0·60, 95% CI 0·50 to 0·72). The composite kidney failure endpoint was reached by 18 (9%) of 202 patients in the sparsentan group versus 26 (13%) of 202 patients in the irbesartan group (relative risk 0·7, 95% CI 0·4 to 1·2). Treatment-emergent adverse events were well balanced between sparsentan and irbesartan, with no new safety signals.InterpretationOver 110 weeks, treatment with sparsentan versus maximally titrated irbesartan in patients with IgA nephropathy resulted in significant reductions in proteinuria and preservation of kidney function

Sparsentan in patients with IgA nephropathy: a prespecified interim analysis from a randomised, double-blind, active-controlled clinical trial

Background: Sparsentan is a novel, non-immunosuppressive, single-molecule, dual endothelin and angiotensin receptor antagonist being examined in an ongoing phase 3 trial in adults with IgA nephropathy. We report the prespecified interim analysis of the primary proteinuria efficacy endpoint, and safety. Methods: PROTECT is an international, randomised, double-blind, active-controlled study, being conducted in 134 clinical practice sites in 18 countries. The study examines sparsentan versus irbesartan in adults (aged ≥18 years) with biopsy-proven IgA nephropathy and proteinuria of 1·0 g/day or higher despite maximised renin-angiotensin system inhibitor treatment for at least 12 weeks. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive sparsentan 400 mg once daily or irbesartan 300 mg once daily, stratified by estimated glomerular filtration rate at screening (30 to 1·75 g/day). The primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline to week 36 in urine protein-creatinine ratio based on a 24-h urine sample, assessed using mixed model repeated measures. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were safety endpoints. All endpoints were examined in all participants who received at least one dose of randomised treatment. The study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03762850. Findings: Between Dec 20, 2018, and May 26, 2021, 404 participants were randomly assigned to sparsentan (n=202) or irbesartan (n=202) and received treatment. At week 36, the geometric least squares mean percent change from baseline in urine protein-creatinine ratio was statistically significantly greater in the sparsentan group (-49·8%) than the irbesartan group (-15·1%), resulting in a between-group relative reduction of 41% (least squares mean ratio=0·59; 95% CI 0·51-0·69; p<0·0001). TEAEs with sparsentan were similar to irbesartan. There were no cases of severe oedema, heart failure, hepatotoxicity, or oedema-related discontinuations. Bodyweight changes from baseline were not different between the sparsentan and irbesartan groups. Interpretation: Once-daily treatment with sparsentan produced meaningful reduction in proteinuria compared with irbesartan in adults with IgA nephropathy. Safety of sparsentan was similar to irbesartan. Future analyses after completion of the 2-year double-blind period will show whether these beneficial effects translate into a long-term nephroprotective potential of sparsentan. Funding: Travere Therapeutics

Efficacy and safety of sparsentan versus irbesartan in patients with IgA nephropathy (PROTECT): 2-year results from a randomised, active-controlled, phase 3 trial

Background Sparsentan, a novel, non-immunosuppressive, single-molecule, dual endothelin angiotensin receptor antagonist, significantly reduced proteinuria versus irbesartan, an angiotensin II receptor blocker, at 36 weeks (primary endpoint) in patients with immunoglobulin A nephropathy in the phase 3 PROTECT trial's previously reported interim analysis. Here, we report kidney function and outcomes over 110 weeks from the double-blind final analysis. Methods PROTECT, a double-blind, randomised, active-controlled, phase 3 study, was done across 134 clinical practice sites in 18 countries throughout the Americas, Asia, and Europe. Patients aged 18 years or older with biopsy-proven primary IgA nephropathy and proteinuria of at least 1·0 g per day despite maximised renin–angiotensin system inhibition for at least 12 weeks were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive sparsentan (target dose 400 mg oral sparsentan once daily) or irbesartan (target dose 300 mg oral irbesartan once daily) based on a permuted-block randomisation method. The primary endpoint was proteinuria change between treatment groups at 36 weeks. Secondary endpoints included rate of change (slope) of the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), changes in proteinuria, a composite of kidney failure (confirmed 40% eGFR reduction, end-stage kidney disease, or all-cause mortality), and safety and tolerability up to 110 weeks from randomisation. Secondary efficacy outcomes were assessed in the full analysis set and safety was assessed in the safety set, both of which were defined as all patients who were randomly assigned and received at least one dose of randomly assigned study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03762850. Findings Between Dec 20, 2018, and May 26, 2021, 203 patients were randomly assigned to the sparsentan group and 203 to the irbesartan group. One patient from each group did not receive the study drug and was excluded from the efficacy and safety analyses (282 [70%] of 404 included patients were male and 272 [67%] were White) . Patients in the sparsentan group had a slower rate of eGFR decline than those in the irbesartan group. eGFR chronic 2-year slope (weeks 6–110) was −2·7 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year versus −3·8 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year (difference 1·1 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year, 95% CI 0·1 to 2·1; p=0·037); total 2-year slope (day 1–week 110) was −2·9 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year versus −3·9 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year (difference 1·0 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year, 95% CI −0·03 to 1·94; p=0·058). The significant reduction in proteinuria at 36 weeks with sparsentan was maintained throughout the study period; at 110 weeks, proteinuria, as determined by the change from baseline in urine protein-to-creatinine ratio, was 40% lower in the sparsentan group than in the irbesartan group (−42·8%, 95% CI −49·8 to −35·0, with sparsentan versus −4·4%, −15·8 to 8·7, with irbesartan; geometric least-squares mean ratio 0·60, 95% CI 0·50 to 0·72). The composite kidney failure endpoint was reached by 18 (9%) of 202 patients in the sparsentan group versus 26 (13%) of 202 patients in the irbesartan group (relative risk 0·7, 95% CI 0·4 to 1·2). Treatment-emergent adverse events were well balanced between sparsentan and irbesartan, with no new safety signals. Interpretation Over 110 weeks, treatment with sparsentan versus maximally titrated irbesartan in patients with IgA nephropathy resulted in significant reductions in proteinuria and preservation of kidney function.</p

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)

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