The human body contains trillions of cells, classified into specific cell types, with diverse morphologies and functions. In addition, cells of the same type can assume different states within an individual's body during their lifetime. Understanding the complexities of the proteome in the context of a human organism and its many potential states is a necessary requirement to understanding human biology, but these complexities can neither be predicted from the genome, nor have they been systematically measurable with available technologies. Recent advances in proteomic technology and computational sciences now provide opportunities to investigate the intricate biology of the human body at unprecedented resolution and scale. Here we introduce a big-science endeavour called π-HuB (proteomic navigator of the human body). The aim of the π-HuB project is to (1) generate and harness multimodality proteomic datasets to enhance our understanding of human biology; (2) facilitate disease risk assessment and diagnosis; (3) uncover new drug targets; (4) optimize appropriate therapeutic strategies; and (5) enable intelligent healthcare, thereby ushering in a new era of proteomics-driven phronesis medicine. This ambitious mission will be implemented by an international collaborative force of multidisciplinary research teams worldwide across academic, industrial and government sectors.
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.