| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- de Rojas, I., et al.
(author)
-
Common variants in Alzheimer’s disease and risk stratification by polygenic risk scores
- 2021
-
In: Nature Communications. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 2041-1723. ; 12:1
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Genetic discoveries of Alzheimer’s disease are the drivers of our understanding, and together with polygenetic risk stratification can contribute towards planning of feasible and efficient preventive and curative clinical trials. We first perform a large genetic association study by merging all available case-control datasets and by-proxy study results (discovery n = 409,435 and validation size n = 58,190). Here, we add six variants associated with Alzheimer’s disease risk (near APP, CHRNE, PRKD3/NDUFAF7, PLCG2 and two exonic variants in the SHARPIN gene). Assessment of the polygenic risk score and stratifying by APOE reveal a 4 to 5.5 years difference in median age at onset of Alzheimer’s disease patients in APOE ɛ4 carriers. Because of this study, the underlying mechanisms of APP can be studied to refine the amyloid cascade and the polygenic risk score provides a tool to select individuals at high risk of Alzheimer’s disease. © 2021, The Author(s).
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
- Klionsky, Daniel J., et al.
(author)
-
Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy
- 2012
-
In: Autophagy. - : Informa UK Limited. - 1554-8635 .- 1554-8627. ; 8:4, s. 445-544
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)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.
|
|
| 10. |
- Patel, Y., et al.
(author)
-
Virtual Ontogeny of Cortical Growth Preceding Mental Illness
- 2022
-
In: Biological Psychiatry. - : Elsevier BV. - 0006-3223 .- 1873-2402. ; 92:4, s. 299-313
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background: Morphology of the human cerebral cortex differs across psychiatric disorders, with neurobiology and developmental origins mostly undetermined. Deviations in the tangential growth of the cerebral cortex during pre/perinatal periods may be reflected in individual variations in cortical surface area later in life. Methods: Interregional profiles of group differences in surface area between cases and controls were generated using T1-weighted magnetic resonance imaging from 27,359 individuals including those with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, autism spectrum disorder, bipolar disorder, major depressive disorder, schizophrenia, and high general psychopathology (through the Child Behavior Checklist). Similarity of interregional profiles of group differences in surface area and prenatal cell-specific gene expression was assessed. Results: Across the 11 cortical regions, group differences in cortical area for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, schizophrenia, and Child Behavior Checklist were dominant in multimodal association cortices. The same interregional profiles were also associated with interregional profiles of (prenatal) gene expression specific to proliferative cells, namely radial glia and intermediate progenitor cells (greater expression, larger difference), as well as differentiated cells, namely excitatory neurons and endothelial and mural cells (greater expression, smaller difference). Finally, these cell types were implicated in known pre/perinatal risk factors for psychosis. Genes coexpressed with radial glia were enriched with genes implicated in congenital abnormalities, birth weight, hypoxia, and starvation. Genes coexpressed with endothelial and mural genes were enriched with genes associated with maternal hypertension and preterm birth. Conclusions: Our findings support a neurodevelopmental model of vulnerability to mental illness whereby prenatal risk factors acting through cell-specific processes lead to deviations from typical brain development during pregnancy.
|
|
