| 1. |
- 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.
|
|
| 2. |
- Klionsky, Daniel J., et al.
(författare)
-
Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy in higher eukaryotes
- 2008
-
Ingår i: Autophagy. - : Landes Bioscience. - 1554-8627 .- 1554-8635. ; 4:2, s. 151-175
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Research in autophagy continues to accelerate,1 and as a result many new scientists are entering the field. Accordingly, it is important to establish a standard set of criteria for monitoring macroautophagy in different organisms. Recent reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose.2,3 There are many useful and convenient methods that can be used to monitor macroautophagy in yeast, but relatively few in other model systems, and there is much confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure macroautophagy in higher eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers of autophagosomes versus those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway; thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from fully functional autophagy that includes delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of the methods that can be used by investigators who are attempting to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as by reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that investigate these processes. This set of guidelines is 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 verify an autophagic response.
|
|
| 3. |
- Palsboll, Per J., et al.
(författare)
-
Inferring recent historic abundance from current genetic diversity
- 2013
-
Ingår i: Molecular Ecology. - : Wiley. - 0962-1083 .- 1365-294X. ; 22:1, s. 22-40
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Recent historic abundance is an elusive parameter of great importance for conserving endangered species and understanding the pre-anthropogenic state of the biosphere. The number of studies that have used population genetic theory to estimate recent historic abundance from contemporary levels of genetic diversity has grown rapidly over the last two decades. Such assessments often yield unexpectedly large estimates of historic abundance. We review the underlying theory and common practices of estimating recent historic abundance from contemporary genetic diversity, and critically evaluate the potential issues at various estimation steps. A general issue of mismatched spatio-temporal scales between the estimation itself and the objective of the estimation emerged from our assessment; genetic diversitybased estimates of recent historic abundance represent long-term averages, whereas the objective typically is an estimate of recent abundance for a specific population. Currently, the most promising approach to estimate the difference between recent historic and contemporary abundance requires that genetic data be collected from samples of similar spatial and temporal duration. Novel genome-enabled inference methods may be able to utilize additional information of dense genome-wide distributions of markers, such as of identity-by-descent tracts, to infer recent historic abundance from contemporary samples only.
|
|
| 4. |
- Steinhoff, Tobias, et al.
(författare)
-
Constraining the Oceanic Uptake and Fluxes of Greenhouse Gases by Building an Ocean Network of Certified Stations : The Ocean Component of the Integrated Carbon Observation System, ICOS-Oceans
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Frontiers in Marine Science. - : FRONTIERS MEDIA SA. - 2296-7745. ; 6
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- The European Research Infrastructure Consortium "Integrated Carbon Observation System" (ICOS) aims at delivering high quality greenhouse gas (GHG) observations and derived data products (e.g., regional GHG-flux maps) for constraining the GHG balance on a European level, on a sustained long-term basis. The marine domain (ICOS-Oceans) currently consists of 11 Ship of Opportunity lines (SOOP - Ship of Opportunity Program) and 10 Fixed Ocean Stations (FOSs) spread across European waters, including the North Atlantic and Arctic Oceans and the Barents, North, Baltic, and Mediterranean Seas. The stations operate in a harmonized and standardized way based on community-proven protocols and methods for ocean GHG observations, improving operational conformity as well as quality control and assurance of the data. This enables the network to focus on long term research into the marine carbon cycle and the anthropogenic carbon sink, while preparing the network to include other GHG fluxes. ICOS data are processed on a near real-time basis and will be published on the ICOS Carbon Portal (CP), allowing monthly estimates of CO2 air-sea exchange to be quantified for European waters. ICOS establishes transparent operational data management routines following the FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable) guiding principles allowing amongst others reproducibility, interoperability, and traceability. The ICOS-Oceans network is actively integrating with the atmospheric (e.g., improved atmospheric measurements onboard SOOP lines) and ecosystem (e.g., oceanic direct gas flux measurements) domains of ICOS, and utilizes techniques developed by the ICOS Central Facilities and the CP. There is a strong interaction with the international ocean carbon cycle community to enhance interoperability and harmonize data flow. The future vision of ICOS-Oceans includes ship-based ocean survey sections to obtain a three-dimensional understanding of marine carbon cycle processes and optimize the existing network design.
|
|
| 5. |
- Teo, Koon K., et al.
(författare)
-
Effects of telmisartan, irbesartan, valsartan, candesartan, and losartan on cancers in 15 trials enrolling 138 769 individuals The ARB Trialists Collaboration
- 2011
-
Ingår i: Journal of Hypertension. - 0263-6352 .- 1473-5598. ; 29:4, s. 623-635
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) reduce cardiovascular disease (CVD) events, but a recent meta-analysis of selected studies suggested that ARBs may increase cancer risks.Objective Candesartan, irbesartan, telmisartan, valsartan, and losartan were assessed for incident cancers in 15 large parallel long-term multicenter double-blind clinical trials of these agents involving 138 769 participants.Patients and methods Individuals at high CVD risk were randomized to telmisartan (three trials, n=51 878), irbesartan (three trials, n=14 859), valsartan (four trials, n=44 264), candesartan (four trials, n=18 566), and losartan (one trial, n=9193) and followed for 23-60 months. Incident cancer cases were compared in patients randomized to ARBs versus controls. In five trials (n=42 403), the ARBs were compared to ACEi and in 11 trials (n=63 313) to controls without ACEi. In addition, in seven trials (n=47 020), the effect of ARBs with ACEi was compared to ACEi alone and in two trials ARBs with ACEi versus ARB alone (n=25 712).Results Overall, there was no excess of cancer incidence with ARB therapy compared to controls in the 15 trials [ 4549 (6.16%) cases of 73 808 allocated to ARB versus 3856 (6.31%) of 61 106 assigned to non-ARB controls; odds ratio (OR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95-1.04] overall or when individual ARBs were examined. ORs comparing combination therapy with ARB along with ACEi versus ACEi was 1.01 (95% CI 0.94-1.10), combination versus ARB alone 1.02 (95% CI 0.91-1.13), ARB alone versus ACEi alone 1.06 (95% CI 0.97-1.16) and ARB versus placebo/control without ACEi 0.97 (95% CI 0.91-1.04). There was no excess of lung, prostate or breast cancer, or overall cancer deaths associated with ARB treatment.Conclusion There was no significant increase in the overall or site-specific cancer risk from ARBs compared to controls.
|
|
