Infectious diseases represent one of the major challenges to sustainable aquaculture production. Rapid, accurate diagnosis and genotyping of emerging pathogens during early-suspected disease cases is critical to facilitate timely response to deploy adequate control measures and prevent or reduce spread. Currently, most laboratories use PCR to amplify partial pathogen genomic regions, occasionally combined with sequencing of PCR amplicon(s) using conventional Sanger sequencing services for confirmatory diagnosis. The main limitation of this approach is the lengthy turnaround time. Here, we report an innovative approach using a previously developed specific PCR assay for pathogen diagnosis combined with a new Oxford Nanopore Technologies (ONT)-based amplicon sequencing method for pathogen genotyping. Using fish clinical samples, we applied this approach for the rapid confirmation of PCR amplicon sequences identity and genotyping of tilapia lake virus (TiLV), a disease-causing virus affecting tilapia aquaculture globally. The consensus sequences obtained after polishing exhibit strikingly high identity to references derived by Illumina and Sanger methods (99.83%-100%). This study suggests that ONT-based amplicon sequencing is a promising platform to deploy in regional aquatic animal health diagnostic laboratories in low- and medium-income countries, for fast identification and genotyping of emerging infectious pathogens from field samples within a single day.
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.