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

| The renin-angiotensin system is an important component of the cardiovascular system. Mounting evidence suggests that the metabolic products of angiotensin I and IIinitially thought to be biologically inactive -have key roles in cardiovascular physiology and pathophysiology. This non-canonical axis of the renin-angiotensin system consists of angiotensin 1-7 , angiotensin 1-9, angiotensin-converting enzyme 2, the type 2 angiotensin II receptor (AT 2 R), the proto-oncogene Mas receptor and the Mas-related G protein-coupled receptor member D. Each of these components has been shown to counteract the effects of the classical reninangiotensin system. This counter-regulatory renin-angiotensin system has a central role in the pathogenesis and development of various cardiovascular diseases and, therefore, represents a potential therapeutic target. In this Review , we provide the latest insights into the complexity and interplay of the components of the non-canonical renin-angiotensin system, and discuss the function and therapeutic potential of targeting this system to treat cardiovascular disease.

Objectives The aim was to examine the independent and joint associations of sitting time and physical activity with risk of incident cardiovascular disease (CVD). Background Sedentary behavior is recognized as a distinct construct beyond lack of leisure-time physical activity, but limited data exists on the interrelationship between these two components of energy balance. Methods Participants in the prospective Women’s Health Initiative Observational Study (N = 71,018), aged 50–79 and free of CVD at baseline (1993–1998), provided information on sedentary behavior, defined as hours of sitting per day, and usual physical activity at baseline and during follow-up through September 2010. First CVD (coronary heart disease or stroke) events were centrally adjudicated. Results Sitting ≥ 10 hours/day compared to ≤ 5 hours/day was associated with increased CVD risk (HR=1.18, 95% CI 1.09, 1.29) in multivariable models including physical activity. Low physical activity was also associated with higher CVD risk (P, trend <0.001). When women were cross-classified by sitting time and physical activity (P, interaction = 0.94), CVD risk was highest in inactive women (≤1.7 MET-hrs/week) who also reported ≥10 hrs/day of sitting. Results were similar for CHD and stroke when examined separately. Associations between prolonged sitting and risk of CVD were stronger in overweight versus normal weight women and women aged 70 years and older compared to younger women. Conclusions Prolonged sitting time was associated with increased CVD risk, independent of leisure-time physical activity, in postmenopausal women without a history of CVD. A combination of low physical activity and prolonged sitting augments CVD risk.

The results from this study suggest that high-GI diets could be a risk factor for depression in postmenopausal women. Randomized trials should be undertaken to examine the question of whether diets rich in low-GI foods could serve as treatments and primary preventive measures for depression in postmenopausal women.