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.

Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance (MR) imaging provides image contrast that is different from that provided by conventional MR techniques. It is particularly sensitive for detection of acute ischemic stroke and differentiation of acute stroke from other processes that manifest with sudden neurologic deficits. Diffusion-weighted MR imaging also provides adjunctive information for other cerebral diseases including neoplasms, intracranial infections, traumatic brain injury, and demyelinating processes. Because stroke is common and in the differential diagnosis of most acute neurologic events, diffusion-weighted MR imaging should be considered an essential sequence, and its use in most brain MR studies is recommended.

Using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), we observed that noxious thermal stimuli (46 degrees C) produce significant signal change in putative reward circuitry as well as in classic pain circuitry. Increases in signal were observed in the sublenticular extended amygdala of the basal forebrain (SLEA) and the ventral tegmentum/periaqueductal gray (VT/PAG), while foci of increased signal and decreased signal were observed in the ventral striatum and nucleus accumbens (NAc). Early and late phases were observed for signals in most brain regions, with early activation in reward related regions such as the SLEA, VT/PAG, and ventral striatum. In contrast, structures associated with somatosensory perception, including SI somatosensory cortex, thalamus, and insula, showed delayed activation. These data support the notion that there may be a shared neural system for evaluation of aversive and rewarding stimuli.

ADC maps and DWI can successfully differentiate PLES from early cerebral ischemia, thus playing a pivotal role in treatment decisions. PLES is associated with a wider variety of conditions than has been previously reported and is not always reversible. Hyperintense DWI signal in patients with the syndrome likely marks a tissue stage of permanent brain injury.