| 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. |
- Charney, Alexander W, et al.
(författare)
-
Contribution of Rare Copy Number Variants toBipolar Disorder Risk Is Limited to Schizoaffective Cases.
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Biological psychiatry. - : Elsevier BV. - 1873-2402 .- 0006-3223. ; 86:2, s. 110-119
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Genetic risk for bipolar disorder (BD) is conferred through many common alleles, while a role for rare copy number variants (CNVs) is less clear. Subtypes of BD including schizoaffective disorder bipolar type (SAB), bipolar I disorder (BD I), and bipolar II disorder (BD II) differ according to the prominence and timing of psychosis, mania, and depression. The genetic factors contributing to the combination of symptoms among these subtypes are poorly understood.Rare large CNVs were analyzed in 6353 BD cases (3833 BD I [2676 with psychosis, 850 without psychosis, and 307 with unknown psychosis history], 1436 BD II, 579 SAB, and 505 BD not otherwise specified) and 8656 controls. CNV burden and a polygenic risk score (PRS) for schizophrenia were used to evaluate the relative contributions of rare and common variants to risk of BD, BD subtypes, and psychosis.CNV burden did not differ between BD and controls when treated as a single diagnostic entity. However, burden in SAB was increased relative to controls (p= .001), BD I (p= .0003), and BD II (p= .0007). Burden and schizophrenia PRSs were increased in SAB compared with BD I with psychosis (CNV p= .0007, PRS p= .004), and BD I without psychosis (CNV p= .0004, PRS p= 3.9× 10-5). Within BD I, psychosis was associated with increased schizophrenia PRSs (p= .005) but not CNV burden.CNV burden in BD is limited to SAB. Rare and common genetic variants may contribute differently to risk for psychosis and perhaps other classes of psychiatric symptoms.
|
|
