A staple theme in clinical psychology, emotion regulation, or the ability to manage one's emotions, is directly linked with personal wellbeing and the ability to effectively navigate the social world. Until recently, this concept has been limited to a focus on intrapersonal processes, such as suppression. Less emphasis has been placed on developmental, social, and cultural aspects of emotion regulation. We argue here that as social beings, our engagement in emotion regulation may often occur interpersonally, with trusted others helping us to regulate our emotions. This review will highlight recent research on interpersonal emotion regulation processes.

Equivalence and non-inferiority trials are becoming more and more popular. Typically, they compare the effects of a treatment of interest with the current gold-standard treatment as the comparator. However, for this approach, the definition of equivalence or non-inferiority margins (NIM) is crucial, and no clear rules for their definition exist. We criticized the practice of these trials of being over-inflationary in favor of (erroneous) equivalence, and we outlined our critique with some study examples comparing psychodynamic treatments with current first-line treatments for mental disorders. Here we answer to a commentary of Leichsenring et al. to our paper. Although focusing on our commentary, these authors are less arguing against our conclusions, but they address issues of study conduct, and lack of appreciation of our examples. However, the crucial question is: What is the risk of erroneous equivalence conclusions that we want to accept as responsible clinicians and scientists? We conclude that the scientific community has to define better and clearer criteria for NIMs. We do not believe that it is ethically justifiable to recommend a treatment that is 10 or 20% less effective than the current gold standard interventions.

In virtually every field of medicine, non-inferiority trials and meta-analyses with non-inferiority conclusions are increasingly common. This non-inferiority approach has been frequently used by a group of authors favoring psychodynamic therapies (PDTs), concluding that PDTs are just as effective as cognitive-behavioral therapies (CBT). We focus on these examples to exemplify some problems associated with non-inferiority tests of psychological treatments, although the problems also apply to psychopharmacotherapy research, CBT research, and others. We conclude that non-inferiority trials have specific risks of different types of validity problems, usually favoring an (erroneous) non-inferiority conclusion. Non-inferiority trials require the definition of non-inferiority margins, and currently used thresholds have a tendency to be inflationary, not protecting sufficiently against degradation. The use of non-inferiority approaches can lead to the astonishing result that one single analysis can suggest both, superiority of the comparator (here: CBT) and non-inferiority of the other treatment (here PDT) at the same time. We provide recommendations how to improve the quality of non-inferiority trials, and we recommend to consider them among other criteria when evaluating manuscripts examining non-inferiority trials. If psychotherapeutic families (such as PDT and CBT) differ on the number of investigating trials, and in the fields of clinical applications, and in other validity aspects mentioned above, conclusions about their general non-inferiority are no more than a best guess, typically expressing the favored approach of the lead author.

In a particular success for translational research agendas, characterization of the neuronal circuits underlying fear extinction, and basic research in animal extinction paradigms, has led to intervention studies examining the use of D-cycloserine (DCS) to enhance therapeutic learning from exposure-based cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT). In this article, we review these intervention studies, and discuss DCS augmentation of CBT relative to more traditional combination-treatment strategies in the treatment of anxiety disorders. We offer an accounting, based on evidence for internal context effects, of current limitations in the combination of antidepressant or benzodiazepine medications with CBT and discuss the advantages of isolated-dosing strategies with DCS relative to these limitations. This strategy is contrasted with the chronic-dosing applications of DCS for schizophrenia and Alzheimer's disease, and future directions for isolated-dosing strategies are discussed.

The stress-70 protein family has previously been shown to be a useful tool for molecular phylogeny at the kingdom to family levels. Although sequences of many members of the stress-70 family are available, few genes from the Protoctista have been sequenced to date. Phylogenetic analyses of algae based on various molecules have not, as yet, provided clear results concerning relationships between major divisions. We cloned and sequenced several algal stress-70 genes in order to provide additional data and to further analyse phylogenetic relationships among algal divisions. New nuclear sequences were obtained from Guillardia theta (Cryptophyta), Ascophyllum nodosum (Heterokontophyta) and Cyanophora paradoxa (Glaucocystophyta). Phylogenetic trees of the stress-70 protein family calculated using different methods are presented. In our trees, the heterokont alga Ascophyllum nodosum is closely related to the slime mould Dictyostelium discoideum, while the nucleomorph (eukaryotic endosymbiont) of the cryptophyte Rhodomonas salina seems to be related to the chlorobiont lineage. The glaucocystophyte Cyanophora paradoxa and the nuclear sequence (host) of the cryptomonad alga Guillardia theta also seem to be closely related. The Cryptophyta and the heterokont algae have evolved from different secondary endosymbiotic events involving different hosts and probably different endosymbionts. However, until more stress-70 sequences of algal divisions become available no definitive conclusions can be drawn concerning branching of the major divisions.