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

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.

Antimicrobial peptides are major components of host innate immunity, a well-conserved, evolutionarily ancient defensive mechanism. Infectious disease-bearing vector ticks are thought to possess specific defense molecules against the transmitted pathogens that have been acquired during their evolution. We found in the tick Haemaphysalis longicornis a novel parasiticidal peptide named longicin that may have evolved from a common ancestral peptide resembling spider and scorpion toxins. H. longicornis is the primary vector for Babesia sp. parasites in Japan. Longicin also displayed bactericidal and fungicidal properties that resemble those of defensin homologues from invertebrates and vertebrates. Longicin showed a remarkable ability to inhibit the proliferation of merozoites, an erythrocyte blood stage of equine Babesia equi, by killing the parasites. Longicin was localized at the surface of the Babesia sp. parasites, as demonstrated by confocal microscopic analysis. In an in vivo experiment, longicin induced significant reduction of parasitemia in animals infected with the zoonotic and murine B. microti. Moreover, RNA interference data demonstrated that endogenous longicin is able to directly kill the canine B. gibsoni, thus indicating that it may play a role in regulating the vectorial capacity in the vector tick H. longicornis. Theoretically, longicin may serve as a model for the development of chemotherapeutic compounds against tick-borne disease organisms.

BackgroundAcaricide failure has been on the rise in the western and central cattle corridor of Uganda. In this study, we identified the tick species associated with acaricide failure and determined their susceptibility to various acaricide molecules used for tick control in Uganda.MethodsIn this cross sectional study, tick samples were collected and identified to species level from 54 purposively selected farms (from 17 districts) that mostly had a history of acaricide failure. Larval packet test was used to screen 31 tick populations from 30 farms for susceptibility at discriminating dose (DD) and 2 × DD of five panels of commercial acaricide molecules belonging to the following classes; amidine, synthetic pyrethroid (SP), organophosphate (OP) and OP-SP co-formulations (COF). Resistance was assessed based on World Health Organization criteria for screening insecticide resistance.ResultsOf the 1357 ticks identified, Rhipicephalus (Rhipicephalus) appendiculatus and Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) decoloratus were the major (95.6 %) tick species in farms sampled. Resistance against SP was detected in 90.0 % (27/30) of the tick populations tested. Worryingly, 60.0 % (18/30) and 63.0 % (19/30) of the above ticks were super resistant (0 % mortality) against 2 × DD cypermethrin and deltamethrin, respectively. Resistance was also detected against COF (43.3 %), OP chlorfenvinphos (13.3 %) and amitraz (12.9 %). In two years, 74.1 % (20/27) of the farms had used two to three acaricide molecules, and 55.6 % (15/27) rotated the molecules wrongly. Multi-acaricide resistance (at least 2 molecules) was detected in 55.2 % (16/29) of the resistant Rhipicephalus ticks and significantly associated with R. decoloratus (p = 0.0133), use of both SP and COF in the last 2 years (p < 0.001) and Kiruhura district (p = 0.0339). Despite emergence of amitraz resistance in the greater Bushenyi area, it was the most efficacious molecule against SP and COF resistant ticks.ConclusionThis study is the first to report emergence of super SP resistant and multi-acaricide resistant Rhipicephalus ticks in Uganda. Amitraz was the best acaricide against SP and COF resistant ticks. However, in the absence of technical interventions, farmer-led solutions aimed at troubleshooting for efficacy of multitude of acaricides at their disposal are expected to potentially cause negative collateral effects on future chemical tick control options, animal welfare and public health.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13071-015-1278-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.