| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Pulit, S. L., et al.
(författare)
-
Atrial fibrillation genetic risk differentiates cardioembolic stroke from other stroke subtypes
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Neurology-Genetics. - : Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health). - 2376-7839. ; 4:6
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective We sought to assess whether genetic risk factors for atrial fibrillation (AF) can explain cardioembolic stroke risk. We evaluated genetic correlations between a previous genetic study of AF and AF in the presence of cardioembolic stroke using genome-wide genotypes from the Stroke Genetics Network (N = 3,190 AF cases, 3,000 cardioembolic stroke cases, and 28,026 referents). We tested whether a previously validated AF polygenic risk score (PRS) associated with cardioembolic and other stroke subtypes after accounting for AF clinical risk factors. We observed a strong correlation between previously reported genetic risk for AF, AF in the presence of stroke, and cardioembolic stroke (Pearson r = 0.77 and 0.76, respectively, across SNPs with p < 4.4 x 10(-4) in the previous AF meta-analysis). An AF PRS, adjusted for clinical AF risk factors, was associated with cardioembolic stroke (odds ratio [OR] per SD = 1.40, p = 1.45 x 10(-48)), explaining similar to 20% of the heritable component of cardioembolic stroke risk. The AF PRS was also associated with stroke of undetermined cause (OR per SD = 1.07,p = 0.004), but no other primary stroke subtypes (all p > 0.1). Genetic risk of AF is associated with cardioembolic stroke, independent of clinical risk factors. Studies are warranted to determine whether AF genetic risk can serve as a biomarker for strokes caused by AF.
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
- Dagenais, G. R., et al.
(författare)
-
Variations in Diabetes Prevalence in Low-, Middle-, and High-Income Countries: Results From the Prospective Urban and Rural Epidemiological Study
- 2016
-
Ingår i: Diabetes Care. - : American Diabetes Association. - 0149-5992 .- 1935-5548. ; 39:5, s. 780-787
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVE The goal of this study was to assess whether diabetes prevalence varies by countries at different economic levels and whether this can be explained by known risk factors. The prevalence of diabetes, defined as self-reported or fasting glycemia >= 7 mmol/L, was documented in 119,666 adults from three high-income (HIC), seven upper-middle-income (UMIC), four lower-middle-income (LMIC), and four low-income (LIC) countries. Relationships between diabetes and its risk factors within these country groupings were assessed using multivariable analyses. Age- and sex-adjusted diabetes prevalences were highest in the poorer countries and lowest in the wealthiest countries (LIC 12.3%, UMIC 11.1%, LMIC 8.7%, and HIC 6.6%; P < 0.0001). In the overall population, diabetes risk was higher with a 5-year increase in age (odds ratio 1.29 [95% CI 1.28-1.31]), male sex (1.19 [1.13-1.25]), urban residency (1.24 [1.11-1.38]), low versus high education level (1.10 [1.02-1.19]), low versus high physical activity (1.28 [1.20-1.38]), family history of diabetes (3.15 [3.00-3.31]), higherwaist-to-hip ratio (highest vs. lowest quartile; 3.63 [3.33-3.96]), and BMI (>= 35 vs. < 25 kg/m(2); 2.76 [2.52-3.03]). The relationship between diabetes prevalence and both BMI and family history of diabetes differed in higher-versus lower-income country groups (P for interaction < 0.0001). After adjustment for all risk factors and ethnicity, diabetes prevalences continued to show a gradient (LIC 14.0%, LMIC 10.1%, UMIC 10.9%, and HIC 5.6%). Conventional risk factors do not fully account for the higher prevalence of diabetes in LIC countries. These findings suggest that other factors are responsible for the higher prevalence of diabetes in LIC countries.
|
|
| 8. |
- 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.
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
-
- 2019
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)
|
|
