| 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. |
- Rossi, Mark S., et al.
(författare)
-
Leaders in sustainable development: how agents of change define the agenda
- 2000
-
Ingår i: Business Strategy and the Environment. - 0964-4733 .- 1099-0836. ; 9:5, s. 279-289
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This article provides an overview of the Eighth Annual Greening of Industry Conference, Sustainability: Ways of Knowing/Ways of Acting. Held in Chapel Hill, NC (USA), 14–17 November 1999, the conference featured diverse visions of sustainability and a range of views on which societal actors should play leading roles in setting the sustainability agenda. The conference revealed a dichotomy between corporate and public visions of sustainability: who should define the agenda, who should lead the transition and the degree of change needed to achieve a sustainable society. Presenters at the conference highlighted innovative sustainability actions of corporations, the challenges and successes of collaborative approaches, and the shift in the NGO tactics towards the corporate role in defining the sustainability agenda. A challenge for future Network conferences is how to catalyse fruitful links and mergers among various visions of sustainable development and the leading agents of change. To that end, a research agenda is proposed.
|
|
| 4. |
- Setlur, Sunita R., et al.
(författare)
-
Estrogen-dependent signaling in a molecularly distinct subclass of aggressive prostate cancer
- 2008
-
Ingår i: Journal of the National Cancer Institute. - Oxford : Oxford University Press. - 0027-8874 .- 1460-2105. ; 100:11, s. 815-825
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: The majority of prostate cancers harbor gene fusions of the 5'-untranslated region of the androgen-regulated transmembrane protease serine 2 (TMPRSS2) promoter with erythroblast transformation-specific transcription factor family members. The common fusion between TMPRESS2 and v-ets erythroblastosis virus E26 oncogene homolog (avian) (ERG) is associated with a more aggressive clinical phenotype, implying the existence of a distinct subclass of prostate cancer defined by this fusion. METHODS: We used complementary DNA-mediated annealing, selection, ligation, and extension to determine the expression profiles of 6144 transcriptionally informative genes in archived biopsy samples from 455 prostate cancer patients in the Swedish Watchful Waiting cohort (1987-1999) and the United States-based Physicians(') Health Study cohort (1983-2003). A gene expression signature for prostate cancers with the TMPRSS2-ERG fusion was determined using partitioning and classification models and used in computational functional analysis. Cell proliferation and TMPRSS2-ERG expression in androgen receptor-negative (NCI-H660) prostate cancer cells after treatment with vehicle or estrogenic compounds were assessed by viability assays and quantitative polymerase chain reaction, respectively. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: We identified an 87-gene expression signature that distinguishes TMPRSS2-ERG fusion prostate cancer as a discrete molecular entity (area under the curve = 0.80, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.792 to 0.81; P < .001). Computational analysis suggested that this fusion signature was associated with estrogen receptor (ER) signaling. Viability of NCI-H660 cells decreased after treatment with estrogen (viability normalized to day 0, estrogen vs vehicle at day 8, mean = 2.04 vs 3.40, difference = 1.36, 95% CI = 1.12 to 1.62) or ERbeta agonist (ERbeta agonist vs vehicle at day 8, mean = 1.86 vs 3.40, difference = 1.54, 95% CI = 1.39 to 1.69) but increased after ERalpha agonist treatment (ERalpha agonist vs vehicle at day 8, mean = 4.36 vs 3.40, difference = 0.96, 95% CI = 0.68 to 1.23). Similarly, expression of TMPRSS2-ERG decreased after ERbeta agonist treatment (fold change over internal control, ERbeta agonist vs vehicle at 24 hours, NCI-H660, mean = 0.57- vs 1.0-fold, difference = 0.43-fold, 95% CI = 0.29- to 0.57-fold) and increased after ERalpha agonist treatment (ERalpha agonist vs vehicle at 24 hours, mean = 5.63- vs 1.0-fold, difference = 4.63-fold, 95% CI = 4.34- to 4.92-fold). CONCLUSIONS: TMPRSS2-ERG fusion prostate cancer is a distinct molecular subclass. TMPRSS2-ERG expression is regulated by a novel ER-dependent mechanism.
|
|
