| 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. |
- Kvaerner, A. S., et al.
(author)
-
The CRCbiome study: a large prospective cohort study examining the role of lifestyle and the gut microbiome in colorectal cancer screening participants
- 2021
-
In: Bmc Cancer. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1471-2407. ; 21:1
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening reduces CRC incidence and mortality. However, current screening methods are either hampered by invasiveness or suboptimal performance, limiting their effectiveness as primary screening methods. To aid in the development of a non-invasive screening test with improved sensitivity and specificity, we have initiated a prospective biomarker study (CRCbiome), nested within a large randomized CRC screening trial in Norway. We aim to develop a microbiome-based classification algorithm to identify advanced colorectal lesions in screening participants testing positive for an immunochemical fecal occult blood test (FIT). We will also examine interactions with host factors, diet, lifestyle and prescription drugs. The prospective nature of the study also enables the analysis of changes in the gut microbiome following the removal of precancerous lesions. Methods: The CRCbiome study recruits participants enrolled in the Bowel Cancer Screening in Norway (BCSN) study, a randomized trial initiated in 2012 comparing once-only sigmoidoscopy to repeated biennial FIT, where women and men aged 50-74 years at study entry are invited to participate. Since 2017, participants randomized to FIT screening with a positive test result have been invited to join the CRCbiome study. Self-reported diet, lifestyle and demographic data are collected prior to colonoscopy after the positive FIT-test (baseline). Screening data, including colonoscopy findings are obtained from the BCSN database. Fecal samples for gut microbiome analyses are collected both before and 2 and 12 months after colonoscopy. Samples are analyzed using metagenome sequencing, with taxonomy profiles, and gene and pathway content as primary measures. CRCbiome data will also be linked to national registries to obtain information on prescription histories and cancer relevant outcomes occurring during the 10 year follow-up period. Discussion: The CRCbiome study will increase our understanding of how the gut microbiome, in combination with lifestyle and environmental factors, influences the early stages of colorectal carcinogenesis. This knowledge will be crucial to develop microbiome-based screening tools for CRC. By evaluating biomarker performance in a screening setting, using samples from the target population, the generalizability of the findings to future screening cohorts is likely to be high.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
