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 flux 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, 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. 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 target by gene knockout or RNA interference more than one autophagy-related protein. In addition, some individual Atg proteins, or groups of proteins, are involved in other cellular pathways implying that 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 assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field.

/pdf/guidelines-for-the-use-and-interpretation-of-assays-for-ijf2t30pbq.pdf

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. 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.

/pdf/guidelines-for-the-use-and-interpretation-of-assays-for-28d1pi1jvo.pdf

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, 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.

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

Research in autophagy continues to accelerate,(1) and as a result many new scientists are entering the field Accordingly, it is important to establish a standard set of criteria for monitoring macroautophagy in different organisms Recent reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose(2,3) There are many useful and convenient methods that can be used to monitor macroautophagy in yeast, but relatively few in other model systems, and there is much confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure macroautophagy in higher eukaryotes A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers of autophagosomes versus those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway; thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from fully functional autophagy that includes delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi) Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of the methods that can be used by investigators who are attempting to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as by reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that investigate these processes This set of guidelines is 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 verify an autophagic response

/pdf/guidelines-for-the-use-and-interpretation-of-assays-for-4sx3t3he7d.pdf

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy in higher eukaryotes

https://www.cidjournal.com/article/S0738-081X(06)00138-6/pdf

Pathophysiology of acute wound healing.

Departamento de Biologia Instituto de Biociencias Univ Estadual Paulista (UNESP), Rio Claro, SP

Comparative study of the cuticular hydrocarbon composition of Melipona bicolor Lepeletier, 1836 (Hymenoptera, Meliponini) workers and queens.

INTRODUCTION 
The tissue that occupy the spaces among the insect organs, is generally named fat body and is compose by cells of mesodermal origin, sometimes containing, also, ectodermic cells. The mesodermal cells are the trophocytes and its derivates, and the ectodermal, the oenocytes. The proportion of the two cells in this tissue varies according to the phase of the life of the insect. During most of the life of the insect the cells of mesodermal origin, the trophocytes, are predominant and the oenocytes frequently are met disperse among them. In many cases the trophocytes acquire specialized functions and receive specific designations as: urocytes, chromatocytes or mycetocytes. The designation adipocyte is sometimes found in the literature for the main fat body cell. This name is improper since this cell is not a simple deposit of fat
but have a much more complex metabolism and storage also proteins and sugars. The term trophocyte, indicative of nutrients storage cell is also restrictive in relation to their effective functions, because beyond the storage function it has others variable functions along the life of the insects, secreting substances for exportation, besides detoxification and excretory functions (KILBY, 1963; ISAC; BOWENS, 1982). The denomination adopted in this work is trophocyte, however, it should be pointed out that other cells receive from some authors the same denomination, as the nurse cells present in the insect meroistic ovaries.

Morphology and function of insect fat body cells: a review

The anatomy of the internal organs of the male reproductive apparatus (MRA) of adults and pupae was compared among 51 species of bees, including representatives of six families. Four different types of MRA were found. The type I is present in males of the less derived families (Colletidae, Andrenidae, and Halictidae) and is characterized by three seminiferous tubules per testis, which are almost completely enveloped by the scrotal membrane. The type II is an intermediary between types III and I and is present in Melittidae and Megachilidae, as well as in some Apidae studied, being characterized by post-vesicular deferent ducts outside the scrotal membrane and by three or four seminiferous tubules per testis, except for Apis mellifera L., which has a secondarily increased number of tubules. Type III was only found in the Apidae studied and is characterized by separately encapsulated testes and genital ducts (except for the post-vesicular deferent duct). Accessory glands are well developed, and the ejaculatory duct is thickened with fissures in its wall, which may also occur in the type II. Type IV is present exclusively in the tribe Meliponini, and is characterized by the absence of accessory glands.

/pdf/comparative-anatomy-of-the-male-reproductive-internal-organs-1rr9xx5xzo.pdf

Comparative anatomy of the male reproductive internal organs of 51 species of bees

SUMMARYThe comparative study of the ultrastructure of the midgut epithelium of stingless bee larvae that eat plant protein (pollen) and animal protein (carrion) throughout the larval phase, shows variations in the digestive cells that are only relative to larval aging and not to the type of larval diet. The cells of older larvae present a cytoplasm with empty spaces that result from emptying of lipid and glycogen stocks, and the presence of autophagic vacuoles. These results are discussed in relation to the hypothesis that variations in the digestive tract of insects may be associated with different diets or phylogeny. We conclude that different diets do not determine cell morphology adaptations in the studied species. As the variations in the ultrastructure of the midgut epithelium are the same in all studied species, including the necrophagous species Trigona hypogea, throughout the larval stage, this sequence of changes seems to be due to different physiological state during larval development.

Ultrastructure of the midgut epithelium of Meliponinae larvae with different developmental stages and diets

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

Carminda da Cruz-Landim

Author Tools

Chat about Author

Papers

Comparative study of the cuticular hydrocarbon composition of Melipona bicolor Lepeletier, 1836 (Hymenoptera, Meliponini) workers and queens.

Morphology and function of insect fat body cells: a review

Comparative anatomy of the male reproductive internal organs of 51 species of bees

Morphology and function of insect fat body cells: a review

Ultrastructure of the midgut epithelium of Meliponinae larvae with different developmental stages and diets