University of South Dakota

About: University of South Dakota is a education organization based out in Vermillion, South Dakota, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Poison control. The organization has 4461 authors who have published 7868 publications receiving 218869 citations. The organization is also known as: USD.

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition)

Abstract: 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. For example, 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 versus those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process including the amount and rate of cargo sequestered and degraded). In particular, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation must be differentiated from stimuli that increase 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. It is worth emphasizing here that lysosomal digestion is a stage of autophagy and evaluating its competence is a crucial part of the evaluation of autophagic flux, or complete autophagy. 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. Along these lines, because of the potential for pleiotropic effects due to blocking autophagy through genetic manipulation, it is imperative to target by gene knockout or RNA interference more than one autophagy-related protein. In addition, some individual Atg proteins, or groups of proteins, are involved in other cellular pathways implying that not all Atg proteins can be used as a specific marker for an autophagic process. 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 assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field.

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

Abstract: 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.

Stress in Fishes: A Diversity of Responses with Particular Reference to Changes in Circulating Corticosteroids

Abstract: Physical, chemical and perceived stressors can all evoke non-specific responses in fish, which are considered adaptive to enable the fish to cope with the disturbance and maintain its homeostatic state. If the stressor is overly severe or long-lasting to the point that the fish is not capable of regaining homeostasis, then the responses themselves may become maladaptive and threaten the fish's health and well-being. Physiological responses to stress are grouped as primary, which include endocrine changes such as in measurable levels of circulating catecholamines and corticosteroids, and secondary, which include changes in features related to metabolism, hydromineral balance, and cardiovascular, respiratory and immune functions. In some instances, the endocrine responses are directly responsible for these secondary responses resulting in changes in concentration of blood constituents, including metabolites and major ions, and, at the cellular level, the expression of heat-shock or stress proteins. Tertiary or whole-animal changes in performance, such as in growth, disease resistance and behavior, can result from the primary and secondary responses and possibly affect survivorship.Fishes display a wide variation in their physiological responses to stress, which is clearly evident in the plasma corticosteroid changes, chiefly cortisol in actinopterygian fishes, that occur following a stressful event. The characteristic elevation in circulating cortisol during the first hour after an acute disturbance can vary by more than two orders of magnitude among species and genetic history appears to account for much of this interspecific variation. An appreciation of the factors that affect the magnitude, duration and recovery of cortisol and other physiological changes caused by stress in fishes is important for proper interpretation of experimental data and design of effective biological monitoring programs.

First results from the LUX dark matter experiment at the Sanford Underground Research Facility

Abstract: The Large Underground Xenon (LUX) experiment is a dual-phase xenon time-projection chamber operating at the Sanford Underground Research Facility (Lead, South Dakota). The LUX cryostat was filled for the first time in the underground laboratory in February 2013. We report results of the first WIMP search data set, taken during the period from April to August 2013, presenting the analysis of 85.3 live days of data with a fiducial volume of 118 kg. A profile-likelihood analysis technique shows our data to be consistent with the background-only hypothesis, allowing 90% confidence limits to be set on spin-independent WIMP-nucleon elastic scattering with a minimum upper limit on the cross section of 7.6 × 10(-46) cm(2) at a WIMP mass of 33 GeV/c(2). We find that the LUX data are in disagreement with low-mass WIMP signal interpretations of the results from several recent direct detection experiments.

Results from a Search for Dark Matter in the Complete LUX Exposure

Abstract: We report constraints on spin-independent weakly interacting massive particle (WIMP)-nucleon scattering using a 3.35×10^{4} kg day exposure of the Large Underground Xenon (LUX) experiment. A dual-phase xenon time projection chamber with 250 kg of active mass is operated at the Sanford Underground Research Facility under Lead, South Dakota (USA). With roughly fourfold improvement in sensitivity for high WIMP masses relative to our previous results, this search yields no evidence of WIMP nuclear recoils. At a WIMP mass of 50 GeV c^{-2}, WIMP-nucleon spin-independent cross sections above 2.2×10^{-46} cm^{2} are excluded at the 90% confidence level. When combined with the previously reported LUX exposure, this exclusion strengthens to 1.1×10^{-46} cm^{2} at 50 GeV c^{-2}.