Major depressive disorder is prevalent worldwide, and only about half of those affected will experience no further episodes or symptoms. Additionally, depressive symptoms can be challenging to identify, with many patients going undiagnosed despite a wide variety of available treatment options. Antidepressants are the cornerstone of depression treatment; however, a large number of factors must be considered in selecting the treatment best suited to the individual. To help support physicians in this process, international and national treatment guidelines have been developed. This review evaluates the current use of antidepressant treatment for major depressive disorder in six Asian countries (China, Korea, Malaysia, Philippines, Taiwan, and Thailand). No remarkable differences were noted between Asian and international treatment guidelines or among those from within Asia as these are adapted from western guidelines, although there were some local variations. Importantly, a shortage of evidence-based information at a country level is the primary problem in developing guidelines appropriate for Asia, so most of the guidelines are consensus opinions derived from western research data utilized in western guidelines. Treatment guidelines need to evolve from being consensus based to evidence based when evidence is available, taking into consideration cost/effectiveness or cost/benefit with an evidence-based approach that more accurately reflects clinical experience as well as the attributes of each antidepressant. In everyday practice, physicians must tailor their treatment to the patient's clinical needs while considering associated external factors; better tools are needed to help them reach the best possible prescribing decisions which are of maximum benefit to patients.
In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field.