| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
-
- 2019
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)
|
|
| 4. |
- 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.
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
- Mouthaan, B. E., et al.
(författare)
-
Current use of imaging and electromagnetic source localization procedures in epilepsy surgery centers across Europe
- 2016
-
Ingår i: Epilepsia. - : Wiley. - 0013-9580. ; 57:5, s. 770-776
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective: In 2014 the European Union-funded E-PILEPSY project was launched to improve awareness of, and accessibility to, epilepsy surgery across Europe. We aimed to investigate the current use of neuroimaging, electromagnetic source localization, and imaging postprocessing procedures in participating centers. Methods: A survey on the clinical use of imaging, electromagnetic source localization, and postprocessing methods in epilepsy surgery candidates was distributed among the 25 centers of the consortium. A descriptive analysis was performed, and results were compared to existing guidelines and recommendations. Results: Response rate was 96%. Standard epilepsy magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) protocols are acquired at 3 Tesla by 15 centers and at 1.5 Tesla by 9 centers. Three centers perform 3T MRI only if indicated. Twenty-six different MRI sequences were reported. Six centers follow all guideline-recommended MRI sequences with the proposed slice orientation and slice thickness or voxel size. Additional sequences are used by 22 centers. MRI postprocessing methods are used in 16 centers. Interictal positron emission tomography (PET) is available in 22 centers; all using 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG). Seventeen centers perform PET postprocessing. Single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) is used by 19 centers, of which 15 perform postprocessing. Four centers perform neither PET nor SPECT in children. Seven centers apply magnetoencephalography (MEG) source localization, and nine apply electroencephalography (EEG) source localization. Fourteen combinations of inverse methods and volume conduction models are used. Significance: We report a large variation in the presurgical diagnostic workup among epilepsy surgery centers across Europe. This diversity underscores the need for highquality systematic reviews, evidence-based recommendations, and harmonization of available diagnostic presurgical methods.
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
