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

Rates of PaC resection remain low in Europe and USA with great international variations. Further studies are warranted to explore reasons for these variations.

BackgroundRecent evidence suggests a role for the microbiome in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) aetiology and progression.ObjectiveTo explore the faecal and salivary microbiota as potential diagnostic biomarkers.MethodsWe applied shotgun metagenomic and 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing to samples from a Spanish case–control study (n=136), including 57 cases, 50 controls, and 29 patients with chronic pancreatitis in the discovery phase, and from a German case–control study (n=76), in the validation phase.ResultsFaecal metagenomic classifiers performed much better than saliva-based classifiers and identified patients with PDAC with an accuracy of up to 0.84 area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) based on a set of 27 microbial species, with consistent accuracy across early and late disease stages. Performance further improved to up to 0.94 AUROC when we combined our microbiome-based predictions with serum levels of carbohydrate antigen (CA) 19–9, the only current non-invasive, Food and Drug Administration approved, low specificity PDAC diagnostic biomarker. Furthermore, a microbiota-based classification model confined to PDAC-enriched species was highly disease-specific when validated against 25 publicly available metagenomic study populations for various health conditions (n=5792). Both microbiome-based models had a high prediction accuracy on a German validation population (n=76). Several faecal PDAC marker species were detectable in pancreatic tumour and non-tumour tissue using 16S rRNA sequencing and fluorescence in situ hybridisation.ConclusionTaken together, our results indicate that non-invasive, robust and specific faecal microbiota-based screening for the early detection of PDAC is feasible.

Chronic pancreatitis (CP) is a complex disease with a wide range of clinical manifestations. This range comprises from asymptomatic patients to patients with disabling symptoms or complications. The management of CP is frequently different between geographic areas and even medical centers. This is due to the paucity of high quality studies and clinical practice guidelines regarding its diagnosis and treatment. The aim of the Spanish Pancreatic Club was to give current evidence-based recommendations for the management of CP. Two coordinators chose a multidisciplinary panel of 24 experts on this disease. These experts were selected according to clinical and research experience in CP. A list of questions was made and two experts reviewed each question. A draft was later produced and discussed with the entire panel of experts in a face-to-face meeting. The level of evidence was based on the ratings given by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. In the second part of the consensus, recommendations were given regarding the management of pain, pseudocysts, duodenal and biliary stenosis, pancreatic fistula and ascites, left portal hypertension, diabetes mellitus, exocrine pancreatic insufficiency, and nutritional support in CP.

EPI is a frequent but under-recognized complication of pancreatic surgery. These guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations for the definition, diagnosis, and management of EPI after pancreatic surgery.

No abstract

No abstract

Chronic pancreatitis and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) are associated with major changes in cell differentiation. These changes may be at the basis of the increased risk for PDAC among patients with chronic pancreatitis. Polycomb proteins are epigenetic silencers expressed in adult stem cells; up-regulation of Polycomb proteins has been reported to occur in a variety of solid tumours such as colon and breast cancer. We hypothesized that Polycomb might play a role in preneoplastic states in the pancreas and in tumour development/progression. To test these ideas, we determined the expression of PRC1 complex proteins (Bmi1 and Ring1b) during pancreatic development and in pancreatic tissue from mouse models of disease: acute and chronic pancreatic injury, duct ligation, and in K-Ras(G12V) conditional knock-in and caerulein-treated K-Ras(G12V) mice. The study was extended to human pancreatic tissue samples. To obtain mechanistic insights, Bmi1 expression in cells undergoing in vitro exocrine cell metaplasia and the effects of Bmi1 depletion in an acinar cancer cell line were studied. We found that Bmi1 and Ring1B are expressed in pancreatic exocrine precursor cells during early development and in ductal and islet cells-but not acinar cells-in the adult pancreas. Bmi1 expression was induced in acinar cells during acute injury, in acinar-ductal metaplastic lesions, as well as in pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PanIN) and PDAC. In contrast, Ring1B expression was only significantly and persistently up-regulated in high-grade PanINs and in PDAC. Bmi1 knockdown in cultured acinar tumour cells led to changes in the expression of various digestive enzymes. Our results suggest that Bmi1 and Ring1B are modulated in pancreatic diseases and could contribute differently to tumour development.