| 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. |
- Kattge, Jens, et al.
(författare)
-
TRY plant trait database - enhanced coverage and open access
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Global Change Biology. - : Wiley-Blackwell. - 1354-1013 .- 1365-2486. ; 26:1, s. 119-188
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Plant traits-the morphological, anatomical, physiological, biochemical and phenological characteristics of plants-determine how plants respond to environmental factors, affect other trophic levels, and influence ecosystem properties and their benefits and detriments to people. Plant trait data thus represent the basis for a vast area of research spanning from evolutionary biology, community and functional ecology, to biodiversity conservation, ecosystem and landscape management, restoration, biogeography and earth system modelling. Since its foundation in 2007, the TRY database of plant traits has grown continuously. It now provides unprecedented data coverage under an open access data policy and is the main plant trait database used by the research community worldwide. Increasingly, the TRY database also supports new frontiers of trait-based plant research, including the identification of data gaps and the subsequent mobilization or measurement of new data. To support this development, in this article we evaluate the extent of the trait data compiled in TRY and analyse emerging patterns of data coverage and representativeness. Best species coverage is achieved for categorical traits-almost complete coverage for 'plant growth form'. However, most traits relevant for ecology and vegetation modelling are characterized by continuous intraspecific variation and trait-environmental relationships. These traits have to be measured on individual plants in their respective environment. Despite unprecedented data coverage, we observe a humbling lack of completeness and representativeness of these continuous traits in many aspects. We, therefore, conclude that reducing data gaps and biases in the TRY database remains a key challenge and requires a coordinated approach to data mobilization and trait measurements. This can only be achieved in collaboration with other initiatives.
|
|
| 4. |
- Timmerman, Stefan, et al.
(författare)
-
External Validation of the Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS) Lexicon and the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis 2-Step Strategy to Stratify Ovarian Tumors Into O-RADS Risk Groups
- 2023
-
Ingår i: JAMA Oncology. - : American Medical Association (AMA). - 2374-2437 .- 2374-2445. ; 9:2, s. 225-233
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- IMPORTANCE: Correct diagnosis of ovarian cancer results in better prognosis. Adnexal lesions can be stratified into the Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System (O-RADS) risk of malignancy categories with either the O-RADS lexicon, proposed by the American College of Radiology, or the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) 2-step strategy.OBJECTIVE: To investigate the diagnostic performance of the O-RADS lexicon and the IOTA 2-step strategy.DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective external diagnostic validation study based on interim data of IOTA5, a prospective international multicenter cohort study, in 36 oncology referral centers or other types of centers. A total of 8519 consecutive adult patients presenting with an adnexal mass between January 1, 2012, and March 1, 2015, and treated either with surgery or conservatively were included in this diagnostic study. Twenty-five patients were excluded for withdrawal of consent, 2777 were excluded from 19 centers that did not meet predefined data quality criteria, and 812 were excluded because they were already in follow-up at recruitment. The analysis included 4905 patients with a newly detected adnexal mass in 17 centers that met predefined data quality criteria. Data were analyzed from January 31 to March 1, 2022.EXPOSURES: Stratification into O-RADS categories (malignancy risk <1%, 1% to <10%, 10% to <50%, and ≥50%). For the IOTA 2-step strategy, the stratification is based on the individual risk of malignancy calculated with the IOTA 2-step strategy.MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Observed prevalence of malignancy in each O-RADS risk category, as well as sensitivity and specificity. The reference standard was the status of the tumor at inclusion, determined by histology or clinical and ultrasonographic follow-up for 1 year. Multiple imputation was used for uncertain outcomes owing to inconclusive follow-up information.RESULTS: Median age of the 4905 patients was 48 years (IQR, 36-62 years). Data on race and ethnicity were not collected. A total of 3441 tumors (70%) were benign, 978 (20%) were malignant, and 486 (10%) had uncertain classification. Using the O-RADS lexicon resulted in 1.1% (24 of 2196) observed prevalence of malignancy in O-RADS 2, 4% (34 of 857) in O-RADS 3, 27% (246 of 904) in O-RADS 4, and 78% (732 of 939) in O-RADS 5; the corresponding results for the IOTA 2-step strategy were 0.9% (18 of 1984), 4% (58 of 1304), 30% (206 of 690), and 82% (756 of 927). At the 10% risk threshold (O-RADS 4-5), the O-RADS lexicon had 92% sensitivity (95% CI, 87%-96%) and 80% specificity (95% CI, 74%-85%), and the IOTA 2-step strategy had 91% sensitivity (95% CI, 84%-95%) and 85% specificity (95% CI, 80%-88%).CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The findings of this external diagnostic validation study suggest that both the O-RADS lexicon and the IOTA 2-step strategy can be used to stratify patients into risk groups. However, the observed malignancy rate in O-RADS 2 was not clearly below 1%.
|
|
| 5. |
- Van Calster, Ben, et al.
(författare)
-
Validation of models to diagnose ovarian cancer in patients managed surgically or conservatively : multicentre cohort study
- 2020
-
Ingår i: BMJ (Clinical research ed.). - : BMJ. - 1756-1833. ; 370
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the performance of diagnostic prediction models for ovarian malignancy in all patients with an ovarian mass managed surgically or conservatively. DESIGN: Multicentre cohort study. SETTING: 36 oncology referral centres (tertiary centres with a specific gynaecological oncology unit) or other types of centre. PARTICIPANTS: Consecutive adult patients presenting with an adnexal mass between January 2012 and March 2015 and managed by surgery or follow-up. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Overall and centre specific discrimination, calibration, and clinical utility of six prediction models for ovarian malignancy (risk of malignancy index (RMI), logistic regression model 2 (LR2), simple rules, simple rules risk model (SRRisk), assessment of different neoplasias in the adnexa (ADNEX) with or without CA125). ADNEX allows the risk of malignancy to be subdivided into risks of a borderline, stage I primary, stage II-IV primary, or secondary metastatic malignancy. The outcome was based on histology if patients underwent surgery, or on results of clinical and ultrasound follow-up at 12 (±2) months. Multiple imputation was used when outcome based on follow-up was uncertain. RESULTS: The primary analysis included 17 centres that met strict quality criteria for surgical and follow-up data (5717 of all 8519 patients). 812 patients (14%) had a mass that was already in follow-up at study recruitment, therefore 4905 patients were included in the statistical analysis. The outcome was benign in 3441 (70%) patients and malignant in 978 (20%). Uncertain outcomes (486, 10%) were most often explained by limited follow-up information. The overall area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was highest for ADNEX with CA125 (0.94, 95% confidence interval 0.92 to 0.96), ADNEX without CA125 (0.94, 0.91 to 0.95) and SRRisk (0.94, 0.91 to 0.95), and lowest for RMI (0.89, 0.85 to 0.92). Calibration varied among centres for all models, however the ADNEX models and SRRisk were the best calibrated. Calibration of the estimated risks for the tumour subtypes was good for ADNEX irrespective of whether or not CA125 was included as a predictor. Overall clinical utility (net benefit) was highest for the ADNEX models and SRRisk, and lowest for RMI. For patients who received at least one follow-up scan (n=1958), overall area under the receiver operating characteristic curve ranged from 0.76 (95% confidence interval 0.66 to 0.84) for RMI to 0.89 (0.81 to 0.94) for ADNEX with CA125. CONCLUSIONS: Our study found the ADNEX models and SRRisk are the best models to distinguish between benign and malignant masses in all patients presenting with an adnexal mass, including those managed conservatively. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01698632.
|
|
