| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Klionsky, Daniel J., et al.
(författare)
-
Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy
- 2012
-
Ingår i: Autophagy. - : Informa UK Limited. - 1554-8635 .- 1554-8627. ; 8:4, s. 445-544
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field.
|
|
| 3. |
- Fuchs, A., et al.
(författare)
-
Minimum Information about T Regulatory Cells: A Step toward Reproducibility and Standardization
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Frontiers in Immunology. - : Frontiers Media SA. - 1664-3224. ; 8
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Cellular therapies with CD4+ T regulatory cells (Tregs) hold promise of efficacious treatment for the variety of autoimmune and allergic diseases as well as posttransplant complications. Nevertheless, current manufacturing of Tregs as a cellular medicinal product varies between different laboratories, which in turn hampers precise comparisons of the results between the studies performed. While the number of clinical trials testing Tregs is already substantial, it seems to be crucial to provide some standardized characteristics of Treg products in order to minimize the problem. We have previously developed reporting guidelines called minimum information about tolerogenic antigen-presenting cells, which allows the comparison between different preparations of tolerance-inducing antigen-presenting cells. Having this experience, here we describe another minimum information about Tregs (MITREG). It is important to note that MITREG does not dictate how investigators should generate or characterize Tregs, but it does require investigators to report their Treg data in a consistent and transparent manner. We hope this will, therefore, be a useful tool facilitating standardized reporting on the manufacturing of Tregs, either for research purposes or for clinical application. This way MITREG might also be an important step toward more standardized and reproducible testing of the Tregs preparations in clinical applications.
|
|
| 4. |
- Maffi, P., et al.
(författare)
-
Targeting CXCR1/2 Does Not Improve Insulin Secretion After Pancreatic Islet Transplantation: A Phase 3, Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial in Type 1 Diabetes
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Diabetes Care. - : American Diabetes Association. - 0149-5992 .- 1935-5548. ; 43:4, s. 710-718
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVE Reparixin is an inhibitor of CXCR1/2 chemokine receptor shown to be an effective anti-inflammatory adjuvant in a pilot clinical trial in allotransplant recipients. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS A phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-assignment study () was conducted in recipients of islet allotransplants randomized (2:1) to reparixin or placebo in addition to immunosuppression. Primary outcome was the area under the curve (AUC) for C-peptide during the mixed-meal tolerance test at day 75 +/- 5 after the first and day 365 +/- 14 after the last transplant. Secondary end points included insulin independence and standard measures of glycemic control. RESULTS The intention-to-treat analysis did not show a significant difference in C-peptide AUC at both day 75 (27 on reparixin vs. 18 on placebo, P = 0.99) and day 365 (24 on reparixin vs. 15 on placebo, P = 0.71). There was no statistically significant difference between treatment groups at any time point for any secondary variable. Analysis of patient subsets showed a trend for a higher percentage of subjects retaining insulin independence for 1 year after a single islet infusion in patients receiving reparixin as compared with patients receiving placebo (26.7% vs. 0%, P = 0.09) when antithymocyte globulin was used as induction immunosuppression. CONCLUSIONS In this first double-blind randomized trial, islet transplantation data obtained with reparixin do not support a role of CXCR1/2 inhibition in preventing islet inflammation-mediated damage.
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
