| 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. |
- 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.
|
|
| 5. |
- DeAngelis, Nicola, et al.
(författare)
-
2020 WSES guidelines for the detection and management of bile duct injury during cholecystectomy
- 2021
-
Ingår i: World Journal of Emergency Surgery. - : BMC. - 1749-7922. ; 16:1
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Bile duct injury (BDI) is a dangerous complication of cholecystectomy, with significant postoperative sequelae for the patient in terms of morbidity, mortality, and long-term quality of life. BDIs have an estimated incidence of 0.4-1.5%, but considering the number of cholecystectomies performed worldwide, mostly by laparoscopy, surgeons must be prepared to manage this surgical challenge. Most BDIs are recognized either during the procedure or in the immediate postoperative period. However, some BDIs may be discovered later during the postoperative period, and this may translate to delayed or inappropriate treatments. Providing a specific diagnosis and a precise description of the BDI will expedite the decision-making process and increase the chance of treatment success. Subsequently, the choice and timing of the appropriate reconstructive strategy have a critical role in long-term prognosis. Currently, a wide spectrum of multidisciplinary interventions with different degrees of invasiveness is indicated for BDI management. These World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) guidelines have been produced following an exhaustive review of the current literature and an international expert panel discussion with the aim of providing evidence-based recommendations to facilitate and standardize the detection and management of BDIs during cholecystectomy. In particular, the 2020 WSES guidelines cover the following key aspects: (1) strategies to minimize the risk of BDI during cholecystectomy; (2) BDI rates in general surgery units and review of surgical practice; (3) how to classify, stage, and report BDI once detected; (4) how to manage an intraoperatively detected BDI; (5) indications for antibiotic treatment; (6) indications for clinical, biochemical, and imaging investigations for suspected BDI; and (7) how to manage a postoperatively detected BDI.
|
|
| 6. |
- Mattsson, Niklas, et al.
(författare)
-
Prevalence of the apolipoprotein E epsilon 4 allele in amyloid beta positive subjects across the spectrum of Alzheimers disease
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Alzheimer's & Dementia. - : ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC. - 1552-5260 .- 1552-5279. ; 14:7, s. 913-924
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Introduction: Apolipoprotein E (APOE) epsilon 4 is the major genetic risk factor for Alzheimers disease (AD), but its prevalence is unclear because earlier studies did not require biomarker evidence of amyloid beta(A beta) pathology. Methods: We included 3451 A beta+ subjects (853 AD-type dementia, 1810 mild cognitive impairment, and 788 cognitively normal). Generalized estimating equation models were used to assess APOE epsilon 4 prevalence in relation to age, sex, education, and geographical location. Results: The APOE epsilon 4 prevalence was 66% in AD-type dementia, 64% in mild cognitive impairment, and 51% in cognitively normal, and it decreased with advancing age in A beta+ cognitively normal and A beta+ mild cognitive impairment (P amp;lt;.05) but not in A beta+ AD dementia (P =.66). The prevalence was highest in Northern Europe but did not vary by sex or education. Discussion: The APOE E4 prevalence in AD was higher than that in previous studies, which did not require presence of A beta pathology. Furthermore, our results highlight disease heterogeneity related to age and geographical location. (C) 2018 the Alzheimers Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
|
|
| 7. |
- Saeidi, Alireza, et al.
(författare)
-
Attrition of TCR Va7.2+CD161++ MAIT Cells in HIV-Tuberculosis Co-Infection Is Associated with Elevated Levels of PD-1 Expression
- 2015
-
Ingår i: PLOS ONE. - : Public Library of Science. - 1932-6203. ; 10:4, s. e0124659-
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Mucosal-associated invariant T (MAIT) cells are evolutionarily conserved antimicrobial MR1-restricted CD8+ T cells co-expressing the semi-invariant TCR V alpha 7.2, and are numerous in the blood and mucosal tissues of humans. MAIT cells appear to undergo exhaustion in chronic viral infections. However, their role in human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV1) mono-infection and HIV/tuberculosis (TB) co-infection have seldom been elaborately investigated. We conducted a cross-sectional study to investigate the frequencies and phenotypes of CD161++ CD8+ T cells among anti-retroviral therapy (ART)/anti-TB therapy (ATT) treatment-naive HIV/TB co-infected, ART/TB treated HIV/TB co-infected, ART naive HIV-infected, ART-treated HIV-infected patients, and HIV negative healthy controls (HCs) by flow cytometry. Our data revealed that the frequency of MAIT cells was severely depleted in HIV mono-and HIV/TB co-infections. Further, PD-1 expression on MAIT cells was significantly increased in HIV mono-and HIV-TB co-infected patients. The frequency of MAIT cells did not show any significant increase despite the initiation of ART and/or ATT. Majority of the MAIT cells in HCs showed a significant increase in CCR6 expression as compared to HIV/TB co-infections. No marked difference was seen with expressions of chemokine co-receptor CCR5 and CD103 among the study groups. Decrease of CCR6 expression appears to explain why HIV-infected patients display weakened mucosal immune responses.
|
|
