| 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. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
- Jones, Benedict C, et al.
(författare)
-
To which world regions does the valence-dominance model of social perception apply?
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Nature Human Behaviour. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 2397-3374. ; 5:1, s. 159-169
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Over the past 10 years, Oosterhof and Todorov's valence-dominance model has emerged as the most prominent account of how people evaluate faces on social dimensions. In this model, two dimensions (valence and dominance) underpin social judgements of faces. Because this model has primarily been developed and tested in Western regions, it is unclear whether these findings apply to other regions. We addressed this question by replicating Oosterhof and Todorov's methodology across 11 world regions, 41 countries and 11,570 participants. When we used Oosterhof and Todorov's original analysis strategy, the valence-dominance model generalized across regions. When we used an alternative methodology to allow for correlated dimensions, we observed much less generalization. Collectively, these results suggest that, while the valence-dominance model generalizes very well across regions when dimensions are forced to be orthogonal, regional differences are revealed when we use different extraction methods and correlate and rotate the dimension reduction solution. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: The stage 1 protocol for this Registered Report was accepted in principle on 5 November 2018. The protocol, as accepted by the journal, can be found at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.7611443.v1 .
|
|
| 8. |
- Kehoe, Laura, et al.
(författare)
-
Make EU trade with Brazil sustainable
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Science. - : American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). - 0036-8075 .- 1095-9203. ; 364:6438, s. 341-
-
Tidskriftsartikel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
- Boen, Rune, et al.
(författare)
-
Beyond the global brain differences : intraindividual variability differences in 1q21.1 distal and 15q11.2 bp1-bp2 deletion carriers
- 2024
-
Ingår i: Biological Psychiatry. - 0006-3223 .- 1873-2402. ; 95:2, s. 147-160
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Carriers of the 1q21.1 distal and 15q11.2 BP1-BP2 copy number variants exhibit regional and global brain differences compared with noncarriers. However, interpreting regional differences is challenging if a global difference drives the regional brain differences. Intraindividual variability measures can be used to test for regional differences beyond global differences in brain structure.Methods: Magnetic resonance imaging data were used to obtain regional brain values for 1q21.1 distal deletion (n = 30) and duplication (n = 27) and 15q11.2 BP1-BP2 deletion (n = 170) and duplication (n = 243) carriers and matched noncarriers (n = 2350). Regional intra-deviation scores, i.e., the standardized difference between an individual's regional difference and global difference, were used to test for regional differences that diverge from the global difference.Results: For the 1q21.1 distal deletion carriers, cortical surface area for regions in the medial visual cortex, posterior cingulate, and temporal pole differed less and regions in the prefrontal and superior temporal cortex differed more than the global difference in cortical surface area. For the 15q11.2 BP1-BP2 deletion carriers, cortical thickness in regions in the medial visual cortex, auditory cortex, and temporal pole differed less and the prefrontal and somatosensory cortex differed more than the global difference in cortical thickness.Conclusions: We find evidence for regional effects beyond differences in global brain measures in 1q21.1 distal and 15q11.2 BP1-BP2 copy number variants. The results provide new insight into brain profiling of the 1q21.1 distal and 15q11.2 BP1-BP2 copy number variants, with the potential to increase understanding of the mechanisms involved in altered neurodevelopment.
|
|
