The Arracacia clade (Apiaceae, Apioideae) is a heterogeneous assemblage of 12 genera, comprising 111 known species distributed in high montane temperate and sub-alpine habitats of meso- and South America. Previous studies have indicated that the genera Arracacia, Coulterophytum, and Prionosciadium are polyphyletic, but for the most part relationships among the members of the clade are largely unknown. Initially, cladistic analyses of nrDNA ITS sequences were carried out on 212 accessions (122 taxa), representing 92 species of the Arracacia clade and outgroups from the closely-related páramo genera Cotopaxia, Niphogeton, and Perissocoeleum and members of the Perennial Endemic North American clade and its allies. Using the ITS results to inform sampling of a small subset of taxa, a pilot study examining the phylogenetic utility of 20 noncoding chloroplast loci was subsequently performed to identify those regions most useful at resolving relationships. A cost-benefit analysis determined that five loci (trnQ-5'rps16, trnD-trnT, rpl32-trnL, psbD-trnT, ndhA intron) would maximize resolution and branch support in the clade. Cladistic analyses of four of these loci (trnQ-5'rps16, trnD-trnT, rpl32-trnL, ndhA intron) and the ITS region, separately and combined, revealed that Arracacia, Coaxana, Coulterophytum, Prionosciadium, and Rhodosciadium are each polyphyletic and that Donnellsmithia and Myrrhidendron are each monophyletic. Although most relationships in the Arracacia clade and among the closely-related genera Cotopaxia, Niphogeton, and Perissocoeleum are poorly resolved and supported, ten groups are recognized for future revisionary studies. Polyploidy and rapid species radiation have likely confounded generic circumscriptions and interpretation of relationships.
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.