Pogostemon cablin, originating in Malaysia and India, is cultivated in southern China including Guangdong and Hainan Province, which was called GuangHuoXiang to differentiate it from the HuoXiang of the north, the species Agastache rugosa, that it resembles. Essential oil of P. cablin mainly contributes to the pharmacological activities and the therapeutic properties of the essential oils are directly correlated with their qualitative and quantitative composition. For controlling the quality, standard fingerprint of P. cablin collected from different regions was developed by using GC-MS. Nine compounds including beta-patchoulene, caryophyllene, alpha-guaiene, seychellene, beta-guaiene, delta-guaiene, spathulenol, patchouli alcohol and pogostone were identified among 10 main peaks in P. cablin. Hierarchical clustering analysis based on characteristics of 10 investigated peaks in GC profiles showed that 18 samples were divided into three main clusters, patchouliol-type, pogostone-type and an interim-type, which was the one between the two chemotypes. The simulative mean chromatogram for the three types P. cablin was generated using the Computer Aided Similarity Evaluation System. The fingerprint can help to distinguish the substitute or adulterant, and further assess the differences of P. cablin grown in various areas of China.
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.