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.
The WHO adult susceptibility test is in use for insecticide resistance monitoring. Presently, materials are being imported from the Universiti Sains Malaysia, Malaysia and sometimes it is cost prohibitive. As an alternative, we present here a method of bottle bioassay using indigenous material. Different aspects related to the assay were studied and validated in the field. Bottle assay was standardized in the laboratory by using locally sourced material and laboratory-maintained insecticide-susceptible Anopheles stephensi and Aedes aegypti strains against technical grade deltamethrin and cyfluthrin insecticides dissolved in ethanol in a range of different concentrations. The frequency of use of the deltamethrin-coated bottles and shelf-life were determined. Discriminating dose for deltamethrin and cyfluthrin was 10 μg against An. stephensi and 2 μg against Ae. aegypti females. Insecticide-coated bottles stored at 25 to 35 °C can be used for three exposures within 7 days of coating. The study carried out in the laboratory was validated on wild caught An. culicifacies in the states of Odisha and Chhattisgarh against deltamethrin-coated bottles in comparison to WHO adult susceptibility test. Results of the study indicated that deltamethrin-coated bottles were effective up to three exposures within 7 days of coating for field population and 100% mortality was recorded within 35 min as observed in laboratory studies for field collected susceptible population. Also in the WHO adult susceptibility test, 100% knock-down within 35 min and 100% mortality after 24 h holding period were observed in susceptible population, while in it was 50% knock-down in 1 h and 64% mortality after 24 h holding period for resistant population (50% mortality in bottle assay in 60 min). The bottle assay can be used as an alternative to the WHO adult susceptibility test both in the laboratory and field for monitoring insecticide resistance in mosquito vectors using locally sourced material.