| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- 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.
|
|
| 3. |
- Kanai, M, et al.
(författare)
-
- 2023
-
swepub:Mat__t
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Maurer, Matthew J., et al.
(författare)
-
International Assessment of Event-Free Survival at 24 Months and Subsequent Survival in Peripheral T-Cell Lymphoma
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Journal of Clinical Oncology. - 0732-183X. ; 35:36, s. 4019-
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Purpose Peripheral T-cell lymphomas (PTCLs) have aggressive clinical behavior. We have previously shown that event-free survival (EFS) at 24 months (EFS24) is a clinically useful end point in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Here, we assess EFS24 and subsequent overall survival (OS) in large, multinational PTCL cohorts. Patients and Methods Patients with systemic PTCL newly diagnosed from 2000 to 2012 and treated with curative intent were included from the United States and Sweden (initial cohorts) and from Canada (replication cohort). EFS was defined as time from date of diagnosis to progression after primary treatment, retreatment, or death. Subsequent OS was measured after achieving EFS24 or from the time of progression if it occurred within 24 months. OS rates were compared with the age-, sex-, and country-matched general population. Results Seven hundred seventy-five patients were included in the study (the median age at diagnosis was 64 years; 63% were men). Results were similar in the initial and replication cohorts, and a combined analysis was undertaken. Sixty-four percent of patients progressed within the first 24 months and had a median OS of only 4.9 months (5-year OS, 11%). In contrast, median OS after achieving EFS24 was not reached (5-year OS, 78%), although relapses within 5 years of achieving EFS24 occurred in 23% of patients. Superior outcomes after achieving EFS24 were observed in younger patients (≤ 60 years of age: 5-year OS, 91%). Conclusion EFS24 stratifies subsequent outcome in PTCL. Patients with PTCL with primary refractory disease or early relapse have extremely poor survival. However, more than one third of patients with PTCL remain in remission 2 years after diagnosis with encouraging subsequent OS, especially in younger patients. These marked differences in outcome suggest that EFS24 has utility for patient counseling, study design, and risk stratification in PTCL.
|
|
