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

[Abstract unavailable

The synthesis of 2,5-dimethylfuran (DMF) from 5-hydroxymethylfurfural (HMF) is a highly attractive route to a renewable fuel. However, achieving high yields in this reaction is a substantial challenge. Here it is described how PtCo bimetallic nanoparticles with diameters of 3.6 ± 0.7 nm can solve this problem. Over PtCo catalysts the conversion of HMF was 100% within 10 min and the yield to DMF reached 98% after 2 h, which substantially exceeds the best results reported in the literature. Moreover, the synthetic method can be generalized to other bimetallic nanoparticles encapsulated in hollow carbon spheres.

A comparative study on the three quantitative methods frequently used in proteomics, 2D DIGE (difference gel electrophoresis), cICAT (cleavable isotope-coded affinity tags) and iTRAQ (isobaric tags for relative and absolute quantification), was carried out. DIGE and cICAT are familiar techniques used in gel- and LC-based quantitative proteomics, respectively. iTRAQ is a new LC-based technique which is gradually gaining in popularity. A systematic comparison among these quantitative methods has not been reported. In this study, we conducted well-designed comparisons using a six-protein mixture, a reconstituted protein mixture (BSA spiked into human plasma devoid of six abundant proteins), and complex HCT-116 cell lysates as the samples. All three techniques yielded quantitative results with reasonable accuracy when the six-protein or the reconstituted protein mixture was used. In DIGE, accurate quantification was sometimes compromised due to comigration or partial comigration of proteins. The iTRAQ method is more susceptible to errors in precursor ion isolation, which could be manifested with increasing sample complexity. The quantification sensitivity of each method was estimated by the number of peptides detected for each protein. In this regard, the global-tagging iTRAQ technique was more sensitive than the cysteine-specific cICAT method, which in turn was as sensitive as, if not more sensitive than, the DIGE technique. Protein profiling on HCT-116 and HCT-116 p53 -/- cell lysates displayed limited overlapping among proteins identified by the three methods, suggesting the complementary nature of these methods.