Elevated impulsivity is a key component of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), bipolar disorder and juvenile myoclonic epilepsy (JME). We performed a genome-wide association, colocalization, polygenic risk score, and pathway analysis of impulsivity in JME (n = 381). Results were followed up with functional characterisation using a drosophila model. We identified genome-wide associated SNPs at 8q13.3 (P = 7.5 × 10-9) and 10p11.21 (P = 3.6 × 10-8). The 8q13.3 locus colocalizes with SLCO5A1 expression quantitative trait loci in cerebral cortex (P = 9.5 × 10-3). SLCO5A1 codes for an organic anion transporter and upregulates synapse assembly/organisation genes. Pathway analysis demonstrates 12.7-fold enrichment for presynaptic membrane assembly genes (P = 0.0005) and 14.3-fold enrichment for presynaptic organisation genes (P = 0.0005) including NLGN1 and PTPRD. RNAi knockdown of Oatp30B, the Drosophila polypeptide with the highest homology to SLCO5A1, causes over-reactive startling behaviour (P = 8.7 × 10-3) and increased seizure-like events (P = 6.8 × 10-7). Polygenic risk score for ADHD genetically correlates with impulsivity scores in JME (P = 1.60 × 10-3). SLCO5A1 loss-of-function represents an impulsivity and seizure mechanism. Synaptic assembly genes may inform the aetiology of impulsivity in health and disease.
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.