| 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. |
- Paterson, Ross W, et al.
(författare)
-
Cerebrospinal fluid in the differential diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease: clinical utility of an extended panel of biomarkers in a specialist cognitive clinic
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Alzheimer's research & therapy. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1758-9193. ; 10, s. 1-11
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers are increasingly being used to support a diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD). Their clinical utility for differentiating AD from non-AD neurodegenerative dementias, such as dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) or frontotemporal dementia (FTD), is less well established. We aimed to determine the diagnostic utility of an extended panel of CSF biomarkers to differentiate AD from a range of other neurodegenerative dementias.We used immunoassays to measure conventional CSF markers of amyloid and tau pathology (amyloid beta (Aβ)1-42, total tau (T-tau), and phosphorylated tau (P-tau)) as well as amyloid processing (AβX-38, AβX-40, AβX-42, soluble amyloid precursor protein (sAPP)α, and sAPPβ), large fibre axonal degeneration (neurofilament light chain (NFL)), and neuroinflammation (YKL-40) in 245 patients with a variety of dementias and 30 controls. Patients fulfilled consensus criteria for AD (n=156), DLB (n=20), behavioural variant frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD; n=45), progressive non-fluent aphasia (PNFA; n=17), and semantic dementia (SD; n=7); approximately 10% were pathology/genetically confirmed (n=26). Global tests based on generalised least squares regression were used to determine differences between groups. Non-parametric receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and area under the curve (AUC) analyses were used to quantify how well each biomarker discriminated AD from each of the other diagnostic groups (or combinations of groups). CSF cut-points for the major biomarkers found to have diagnostic utility were validated using an independent cohort which included causes of AD (n=104), DLB (n=5), bvFTD (n=12), PNFA (n=3), SD (n=9), and controls (n=10).There were significant global differences in Aβ1-42, T-tau, T-tau/Aβ1-42 ratio, P-tau-181, NFL, AβX-42, AβX-42/X-40 ratio, APPα, and APPβ between groups. At a fixed sensitivity of 85%, AβX-42/X-40 could differentiate AD from controls, bvFTD, and SD with specificities of 93%, 85%, and 100%, respectively; for T-tau/Aβ1-42 these specificities were 83%, 70%, and 86%. AβX-42/X-40 had similar or higher specificity than Aβ1-42. No biomarker or ratio could differentiate AD from DLB or PNFA with specificity >50%. Similar sensitivities and specificities were found in the independent validation cohort for differentiating AD and other dementias and in a pathology/genetically confirmed sub-cohort.CSF AβX-42/X-40 and T-tau/Aβ1-42 ratios have utility in distinguishing AD from controls, bvFTD, and SD. None of the biomarkers tested had good specificity at distinguishing AD from DLB or PNFA.
|
|
| 3. |
- Keshavan, Ashvini, et al.
(författare)
-
CSF biomarkers for dementia.
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Practical neurology. - : BMJ. - 1474-7766 .- 1474-7758. ; 22:4, s. 285-294
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Although cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarker testing is incorporated into some current guidelines for the diagnosis of dementia (such as England's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE)), it is not widely accessible for most patients for whom biomarkers could potentially change management. Here we share our experience of running a clinical cognitive CSF service and discuss recent developments in laboratory testing including the use of the CSF amyloid-β 42/40 ratio and automated assay platforms. We highlight the importance of collaborative working between clinicians and laboratory staff, of preanalytical sample handling, and discuss the various factors influencing interpretation of the results in appropriate clinical contexts. We advocate for broadening access to CSF biomarkers by sharing clinical expertise, protocols and interpretation with colleagues working in psychiatry and elderly care, especially when access to CSF may be part of a pathway to disease-modifying treatments for Alzheimer's disease and other forms of dementia.
|
|
