| 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. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- Krege, Susanne, et al.
(författare)
-
European consensus conference on diagnosis and treatment of germ cell cancer: A report of the second meeting of the European Germ Cell Cancer Consensus Group (EGCCCG): Part I
- 2008
-
Ingår i: European Urology. - : Elsevier BV. - 1873-7560 .- 0302-2838. ; 53:3, s. 478-496
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objectives: The first consensus report presented by the European Germ Cell Cancer Consensus Group (EGCCCG) in the year 2004 has found widespread approval by many colleagues throughout the world. In November 2006, the group met a second time under the auspices of the Department of Urology of the Amsterdam Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Methods: Medical oncologists, urological surgeons, radiation oncologists as well as pathologists from several European countries reviewed and discussed the data that had emerged since the 2002 conference, and incorporated the new data into updated and revised guidelines. As for the first meeting, the methodology of evidence-based medicine (EBM) was applied. The results of the discussion were compiled by the writing committee. All participants have agreed to this final update. Results: The first part of the consensus paper describes the clinical presentation of the primary tumor, its treatment, the importance and treatment of testicular intraepithelial neoplasia (TIN), histological classification, staging and prognostic factors, and treatment of stage I seminoma and non-seminoma. Conclusions: Whereas the vast majority of the recommendations made in 2004 remain valid 3 yr later, refinements in the treatment of early- and advanced-stage testicular cancer have emerged from clinical trials. Despite technical improvements, expert clinical skills will continue to be one of the major determinants for the prognosis of patients with germ cell cancer. In addition, the particular needs of testicular cancer survivors have been acknowledged. (C) 2007 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
|
|
| 7. |
- Krege, Susanne, et al.
(författare)
-
European consensus conference on diagnosis and treatment of germ cell cancer: A report of the second meeting of the European Germ Cell Cancer Consensus Group (EGCCCG): Part II
- 2008
-
Ingår i: European Urology. - : Elsevier BV. - 1873-7560 .- 0302-2838. ; 53:3, s. 497-513
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objectives: The first consensus report that had been presented by the European Germ Cell Cancer Consensus Group (EGCCCG) in 2004 has found widespread approval by many colleagues throughout the world. In November 2006, the group met a second time under the auspices of the Department of Urology of the Amsterdam Medical Center, The Netherlands. Methods: Medical oncologists, urologic surgeons, radiation oncologists as well as pathologists from several European countries reviewed and discussed the data that had emerged since the 2002 conference and incorporated the new data into updated and revised guidelines. As for the first meeting the methodology of evidence-based medicine (EBM) was applied. The results of the discussion were compiled by the writing committee. All participants have agreed to this final update. Results: The second part of the consensus paper includes the treatment of metastasised disease, residual tumour resection, salvage therapy, follow-up, and late toxicities. Conclusions: Whereas the vast majority of the recommendations made in 2004 remain valid 3 yr later, refinements in the treatment of early-stage as well as of advanced-stage testicular cancer have emerged from clinical trials. Despite technical improvements, expert clinical skills will continue to be one of the major determinants for the prognosis of patients with germ cell cancer. in addition, the particular needs of testicular cancer survivors have been acknowledged. (C) 2007 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
|
|
| 8. |
- Lundgren, Jens D, et al.
(författare)
-
Long-Term Benefits from Early Antiretroviral Therapy Initiation in HIV Infection.
- 2023
-
Ingår i: NEJM evidence. - : Massachusetts Medical Society. - 2766-5526. ; 2:3
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- For people with HIV and CD4+ counts >500 cells/mm3, early initiation of antiretroviral therapy (ART) reduces serious AIDS and serious non-AIDS (SNA) risk compared with deferral of treatment until CD4+ counts are <350 cells/mm3. Whether excess risk of AIDS and SNA persists once ART is initiated for those who defer treatment is uncertain.The Strategic Timing of AntiRetroviral Treatment (START) trial, as previously reported, randomly assigned 4684 ART-naive HIV-positive adults with CD4+ counts .500 cells/mm3 to immediate treatment initiation after random assignment (n = 2325) or deferred treatment (n= 2359). In 2015, a 57% lower risk of the primary end point (AIDS, SNA, or death) for the immediate group was reported, and the deferred group was offered ART. This article reports the follow-up that continued to December 31, 2021. Cox proportional-hazards models were used to compare hazard ratios for the primary end point from randomization through December 31, 2015, versus January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2021.Through December 31, 2015, approximately 7 months after the cutoff date from the previous report, the median CD4+ count was 648 and 460 cells/mm3 in the immediate and deferred groups, respectively, at treatment initiation. The percentage of follow-up time spent taking ART was 95% and 36% for the immediate and deferred groups, respectively, and the time-averaged CD4+ difference was 199 cells/mm3. After January 1, 2016, the percentage of follow-up time on treatment was 97.2% and 94.1% for the immediate and deferred groups, respectively, and the CD4+ count difference was 155 cells/mm3. After January 1, 2016, a total of 89 immediate and 113 deferred group participants experienced a primary end point (hazard ratio of 0.79 [95% confidence interval, 0.60 to 1.04] versus hazard ratio of 0.47 [95% confidence interval, 0.34 to 0.65; P<0.001]) before 2016 (P=0.02 for hazard ratio difference).Among adults with CD4+ counts >500 cells/mm3, excess risk of AIDS and SNA associated with delaying treatment initiation was diminished after ART initiation, but persistent excess risk remained. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and others.).
|
|
