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

We describe a conditional in vivo protein trap mutagenesis system that reveals spatio-temporal protein expression dynamics and assesses gene function in the vertebrate Danio rerio. Integration of pGBT-RP2 (RP2), a gene-breaking transposon containing a protein trap, efficiently disrupts gene expression with >97% knockdown of normal transcript levels while simultaneously reporting protein expression of each locus. The mutant alleles are revertible in somatic tissues via Cre recombinase or splice-site blocking morpholinos, thus representing the first systematic conditional mutant alleles outside the mouse model. We report a collection of 350 zebrafish lines including a diverse array of molecular loci. RP2 integrations reveal the complexity of genomic architecture and gene function in a living organism and can provide information on protein subcellular localization. The RP2 mutagenesis system is a step towards a unified codex of protein expression and direct functional annotation of the vertebrate genome.

To the editor Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), which emerged in Wuhan, China in December 2019, is caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and has become a major global public health concern [1]. Positive detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in nasopharyngeal swab samples, sputum samples or bronchoalveolar lavage samples by reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) has been used to confirm SARS-CoV-2 infection [2]. Recently, positive detection of IgM and IgG antibodies specific to SARS-CoV-2 has also been recognized as deterministic evidence for confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection [3,4]. However, the antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 currently remains inadequately understood in COVID-19 patients. In the present study, we investigated the patterns of antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 in patients with COVID-19, aiming to better clarify the humoral immunological response during SARS-CoV-2 infection.