| 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. |
|
|
| 4. |
- 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.
|
|
| 5. |
- Vallejo-Vaz, Antonio J., et al.
(författare)
-
Overview of the current status of familial hypercholesterolaemia care in over 60 countries - The EAS Familial Hypercholesterolaemia Studies Collaboration (FHSC)
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Atherosclerosis. - : ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD. - 0021-9150 .- 1879-1484. ; 277, s. 234-255
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background and aims: Management of familial hypercholesterolaemia (FH) may vary across different settings due to factors related to population characteristics, practice, resources and/or policies. We conducted a survey among the worldwide network of EAS FHSC Lead Investigators to provide an overview of FH status in different countries. Methods: Lead Investigators from countries formally involved in the EAS FHSC by mid-May 2018 were invited to provide a brief report on FH status in their countries, including available information, programmes, initiatives, and management. Results: 63 countries provided reports. Data on FH prevalence are lacking in most countries. Where available, data tend to align with recent estimates, suggesting a higher frequency than that traditionally considered. Low rates of FH detection are reported across all regions. National registries and education programmes to improve FH awareness/knowledge are a recognised priority, but funding is often lacking. In most countries, diagnosis primarily relies on the Dutch Lipid Clinics Network criteria. Although available in many countries, genetic testing is not widely implemented (frequent cost issues). There are only a few national official government programmes for FH. Under-treatment is an issue. FH therapy is not universally reimbursed. PCSK9-inhibitors are available in similar to 2/3 countries. Lipoprotein-apheresis is offered in similar to 60% countries, although access is limited. Conclusions: FH is a recognised public health concern. Management varies widely across countries, with overall suboptimal identification and under-treatment. Efforts and initiatives to improve FH knowledge and management are underway, including development of national registries, but support, particularly from health authorities, and better funding are greatly needed.
|
|
