| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- 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.
|
|
| 3. |
- Falster, Daniel, et al.
(author)
-
AusTraits, a curated plant trait database for the Australian flora
- 2021
-
In: Scientific Data. - : Nature Portfolio. - 2052-4463. ; 8:1
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- We introduce the AusTraits database - a compilation of values of plant traits for taxa in the Australian flora (hereafter AusTraits). AusTraits synthesises data on 448 traits across 28,640 taxa from field campaigns, published literature, taxonomic monographs, and individual taxon descriptions. Traits vary in scope from physiological measures of performance (e.g. photosynthetic gas exchange, water-use efficiency) to morphological attributes (e.g. leaf area, seed mass, plant height) which link to aspects of ecological variation. AusTraits contains curated and harmonised individual- and species-level measurements coupled to, where available, contextual information on site properties and experimental conditions. This article provides information on version 3.0.2 of AusTraits which contains data for 997,808 trait-by-taxon combinations. We envision AusTraits as an ongoing collaborative initiative for easily archiving and sharing trait data, which also provides a template for other national or regional initiatives globally to fill persistent gaps in trait knowledge.
|
|
| 4. |
- Klionsky, Daniel J., et al.
(author)
-
Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy in higher eukaryotes
- 2008
-
In: Autophagy. - : Landes Bioscience. - 1554-8627 .- 1554-8635. ; 4:2, s. 151-175
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)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. |
- Lakens, Daniel, et al.
(author)
-
Justify your alpha
- 2018
-
In: Nature Human Behaviour. - : Nature Publishing Group. - 2397-3374. ; 2:3, s. 168-171
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- In response to recommendations to redefine statistical significance to P ≤ 0.005, we propose that researchers should transparently report and justify all choices they make when designing a study, including the alpha level.
|
|
| 6. |
- Furukawa, Toshi A., et al.
(author)
-
Dismantling, optimising, and personalising internet cognitive behavioural therapy for depression : a systematic review and component network meta-analysis using individual data
- 2021
-
In: Lancet psychiatry. - London, United Kingdom : Elsevier. - 2215-0374 .- 2215-0366. ; 8:6, s. 500-511
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Findings We identified 76 RCTs, including 48 trials contributing individual participant data (11 704 participants) and 28 trials with aggregate data (6474 participants). The participants' weighted mean age was 42.0 years and 12 406 (71%) of 17 521 reported were women. There was suggestive evidence that behavioural activation might be beneficial (iMD -1.83 [95% credible interval (CrI) -2.90 to -0.80]) and that relaxation might be harmful (1.20 [95% CrI 0.17 to 2.27]). Baseline severity emerged as the strongest prognostic factor for endpoint depression. Combining human and automated encouragement reduced dropouts from treatment (incremental odds ratio, 0.32 [95% CrI 0.13 to 0.93]). The risk of bias was low for the randomisation process, missing outcome data, or selection of reported results in most of the included studies, uncertain for deviation from intended interventions, and high for measurement of outcomes. There was moderate to high heterogeneity among the studies and their components. 511
|
|
