Social differentiation and age-friendly characteristics : a case study in Tuen Mun

Hong Kong is one of Asia’s more demographically-aged cities, with 14% of population aged 65+ in 2012, projected to be 23% by 2025. Facilities and transport are generally good by world standards although the urban environment may not consistently be particularly ‘age-friendly’. Drawing on a range of urban sub-areas, this research investigated the ‘age-friendliness’ of Tuen Mun, a ‘new town’ of half a million population in Hong Kong. This study was also interested in socio-cultural variables and age-friendly cities (AFC) characteristics in its predominantly Chinese population, and relationships with psychological well-being (PWB). A total of 503 participants aged 50 years or above were interviewed in a face-to-face questionnaire survey in Tuen Mun. Two focus groups were held afterwards as a post facto evaluation to ascertain and explain the findings of the survey. Among the WHO’s original eight AFC domains, in this study ‘Social participation’ scored the highest AFC rating. ‘Housing’, ‘Civic participation and employment’, and ‘Community support and health services’ perhaps surprisingly scored the lowest. Interestingly, the ‘higher social group’ (i.e. respondents from private housing, with a higher education attainment and household income) tended to be less satisfied with the AFC domains than the lower social group. An important contribution of this study is therefore to show the importance of considering social variations in attitudes to AFC characteristics, as perceptions/expectations of AFC might vary across different social groups. This study also addressed the potential role of AFC characteristics in influencing older persons’ PWB. AFC, especially the ‘software’ aspects related to social support, were found to have the strongest positive correlations with PWB. A newly-proposed ‘Food and shopping’ dimension appeared to be a salient factor affecting PWB, showing such ‘lifestyle’ items should be included in AFC in Asian settings. The policy implications and the value of the AFC concept in cities such as Hong Kong are discussed

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

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