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

No abstract

High-frequency stimulation (HFS) of the subthalamic nucleus (STN) is a well-established therapy for patients with severeParkinson's disease (PD), but its mechanism of action is unclear. Exaggerated oscillatory synchronization in the ␤ (13-30 Hz) frequency band has been associated with bradykinesia in patients with PD. Accordingly, we tested the hypothesis that the clinical benefit exerted by STN HFS is accompanied by suppression of local ␤ activity. To this end, we explored the after effects of STN HFS on the oscillatory local field potential (LFP) activity recorded from the STN immediately after the cessation of HFS in 11 PD patients. Only patients that demonstrated a temporary persistence of clinical benefit after cessation of HFS were analyzed. STN HFS led to a significant reduction in STN LFP ␤ activity for 12 s after the end of stimulation and a decrease in motor cortical-STN coherence in the ␤ band over the same time period. The reduction in LFP ␤ activity correlated with the movement amplitude during a simple motor task, so that a smaller amount of ␤ activity was associated with better task performance. These features were absent when power in the 5-12 Hz frequency band was considered. Our findings suggest that HFS may act by modulating pathological patterns of synchronized oscillations, specifically by reduction of pathological ␤ activity in PD.

See Martinez-Martinez et al. (doi:) for a scientific commentary on this article.Carvajal-González et al. describe the first prospective cohort of patients with glycine receptor antibodies. The majority have progressive encephalomyelitis with rigidity and myoclonus. The antibodies bind to extracellular determinants on glycine receptor-α1 and to glycine receptors on spinal cord and brainstem neurons. The patients make a good recovery with immunotherapies.