| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- 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.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Dankiewicz, Josef, et al.
(författare)
-
Hypothermia versus Normothermia after Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest
- 2021
-
Ingår i: New England Journal of Medicine. - : MASSACHUSETTS MEDICAL SOC. - 0028-4793 .- 1533-4406. ; 384:24, s. 2283-2294
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Hypothermia or Normothermia after Cardiac Arrest This trial randomly assigned patients with coma after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest to undergo targeted hypothermia at 33 degrees C or normothermia with treatment of fever. At 6 months, there were no significant between-group differences regarding death or functional outcomes. Background Targeted temperature management is recommended for patients after cardiac arrest, but the supporting evidence is of low certainty. Methods In an open-label trial with blinded assessment of outcomes, we randomly assigned 1900 adults with coma who had had an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest of presumed cardiac or unknown cause to undergo targeted hypothermia at 33 degrees C, followed by controlled rewarming, or targeted normothermia with early treatment of fever (body temperature, >= 37.8 degrees C). The primary outcome was death from any cause at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included functional outcome at 6 months as assessed with the modified Rankin scale. Prespecified subgroups were defined according to sex, age, initial cardiac rhythm, time to return of spontaneous circulation, and presence or absence of shock on admission. Prespecified adverse events were pneumonia, sepsis, bleeding, arrhythmia resulting in hemodynamic compromise, and skin complications related to the temperature management device. Results A total of 1850 patients were evaluated for the primary outcome. At 6 months, 465 of 925 patients (50%) in the hypothermia group had died, as compared with 446 of 925 (48%) in the normothermia group (relative risk with hypothermia, 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.94 to 1.14; P=0.37). Of the 1747 patients in whom the functional outcome was assessed, 488 of 881 (55%) in the hypothermia group had moderately severe disability or worse (modified Rankin scale score >= 4), as compared with 479 of 866 (55%) in the normothermia group (relative risk with hypothermia, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.09). Outcomes were consistent in the prespecified subgroups. Arrhythmia resulting in hemodynamic compromise was more common in the hypothermia group than in the normothermia group (24% vs. 17%, P<0.001). The incidence of other adverse events did not differ significantly between the two groups. Conclusions In patients with coma after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, targeted hypothermia did not lead to a lower incidence of death by 6 months than targeted normothermia. (Funded by the Swedish Research Council and others; TTM2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, .)
|
|
| 6. |
- Dankiewicz, Josef, et al.
(författare)
-
Targeted hypothermia versus targeted Normothermia after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (TTM2): A randomized clinical trial - Rationale and design
- 2019
-
Ingår i: American Heart Journal. - : Elsevier BV. - 0002-8703 .- 1097-6744. ; 217, s. 23-31
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Less than 500 participants have been included in randomized trials comparing hypothermia with regular care for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients, and many of these trials were small and at a high risk of bias. Consequently, the accrued data on this potentially beneficial intervention resembles that of a drug following small phase II trials. A large confirmatory trial is therefore warranted. Methods: The TTM2-trial is an international, multicenter, parallel group, investigator-initiated, randomized, superiority trial in which a target temperature of 33°C after cardiac arrest will be compared with a strategy to maintain normothermia and early treatment of fever (≥37.8°C). Participants will be randomized within 3 hours of return of spontaneous circulation with the intervention period lasting 40 hours in both groups. Sedation will be mandatory for all patients throughout the intervention period. The clinical team involved with direct patient care will not be blinded to allocation group due to the inherent difficulty in blinding the intervention. Prognosticators, outcome-assessors, the steering group, the trial coordinating team, and trial statistician will be blinded. The primary outcome will be all-cause mortality at 180 days after randomization. We estimate a 55% mortality in the control group. To detect an absolute risk reduction of 7.5% with an alpha of 0.05 and 90% power, 1900 participants will be enrolled. The main secondary neurological outcome will be poor functional outcome (modified Rankin Scale 4–6) at 180 days after arrest. Discussion: The TTM2-trial will compare hypothermia to 33°C with normothermia and early treatment of fever (≥37.8°C) after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. © 2019
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
