| 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. |
- Abolhassani, H, et al.
(författare)
-
Care of patients with inborn errors of immunity in thirty J Project countries between 2004 and 2021
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Frontiers in immunology. - : Frontiers Media SA. - 1664-3224. ; 13, s. 1032358-
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The J Project (JP) physician education and clinical research collaboration program was started in 2004 and includes by now 32 countries mostly in Eastern and Central Europe (ECE). Until the end of 2021, 344 inborn errors of immunity (IEI)-focused meetings were organized by the JP to raise awareness and facilitate the diagnosis and treatment of patients with IEI.ResultsIn this study, meeting profiles and major diagnostic and treatment parameters were studied. JP center leaders reported patients’ data from 30 countries representing a total population of 506 567 565. Two countries reported patients from JP centers (Konya, Turkey and Cairo University, Egypt). Diagnostic criteria were based on the 2020 update of classification by the IUIS Expert Committee on IEI. The number of JP meetings increased from 6 per year in 2004 and 2005 to 44 and 63 in 2020 and 2021, respectively. The cumulative number of meetings per country varied from 1 to 59 in various countries reflecting partly but not entirely the population of the respective countries. Altogether, 24,879 patients were reported giving an average prevalence of 4.9. Most of the patients had predominantly antibody deficiency (46,32%) followed by patients with combined immunodeficiencies (14.3%). The percentages of patients with bone marrow failure and phenocopies of IEI were less than 1 each. The number of patients was remarkably higher that those reported to the ESID Registry in 13 countries. Immunoglobulin (IgG) substitution was provided to 7,572 patients (5,693 intravenously) and 1,480 patients received hematopoietic stem cell therapy (HSCT). Searching for basic diagnostic parameters revealed the availability of immunochemistry and flow cytometry in 27 and 28 countries, respectively, and targeted gene sequencing and new generation sequencing was available in 21 and 18 countries. The number of IEI centers and experts in the field were 260 and 690, respectively. We found high correlation between the number of IEI centers and patients treated with intravenous IgG (IVIG) (correlation coefficient, cc, 0,916) and with those who were treated with HSCT (cc, 0,905). Similar correlation was found when the number of experts was compared with those treated with HSCT. However, the number of patients treated with subcutaneous Ig (SCIG) only slightly correlated with the number of experts (cc, 0,489) and no correlation was found between the number of centers and patients on SCIG (cc, 0,174).Conclusions1) this is the first study describing major diagnostic and treatment parameters of IEI care in countries of the JP; 2) the data suggest that the JP had tremendous impact on the development of IEI care in ECE; 3) our data help to define major future targets of JP activity in various countries; 4) we suggest that the number of IEI centers and IEI experts closely correlate to the most important treatment parameters; 5) we propose that specialist education among medical professionals plays pivotal role in increasing levels of diagnostics and adequate care of this vulnerable and still highly neglected patient population; 6) this study also provides the basis for further analysis of more specific aspects of IEI care including genetic diagnostics, disease specific prevalence, newborn screening and professional collaboration in JP countries.
|
|
| 6. |
- Kohl, S, et al.
(författare)
-
CNGB3 mutations account for 50% of all cases with autosomal recessive achromatopsia
- 2005
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Human Genetics. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1476-5438 .- 1018-4813. ; 13:3, s. 302-308
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Achromatopsia is a congenital, autosomal recessively inherited disorder characterized by a lack of color discrimination, low visual acuity (<0.2), photophobia, and nystagmus. Mutations in the genes for CNGA3, CNGB3, and GNAT2 have been associated with this disorder. Here, we analyzed the spectrum and prevalence of CNGB3 gene mutations in a cohort of 341 independent patients with achromatopsia. In 163 patients, CNGB3 mutations could be identified. A total of 105 achromats carried apparent homozygous mutations, 44 were compound (double) heterozygotes, and 14 patients had only a single mutant allele. The derived CNGB3 mutation spectrum comprises 28 different mutations including 12 nonsense mutations, eight insertions and/or deletions, five putative splice site mutations, and three missense mutations. Thus, the majority of mutations in the CNGB3 gene result in significantly altered and/or truncated polypeptides. Several mutations were found recurrently, in particular a 1 bp deletion, c.1148delC, which accounts for over 70% of all CNGB3 mutant alleles. In conclusion, mutations in the CNGB3 gene are responsible for approximately 50% of all patients with achromatopsia. This indicates that the CNGB3/ACHM3 locus on chromosome 8q21 is the major locus for achromatopsia in patients of European origin or descent.
|
|
| 7. |
- Cicardi, M., et al.
(författare)
-
Icatibant, a New Bradykinin-Receptor Antagonist, in Hereditary Angioedema
- 2010
-
Ingår i: New England Journal of Medicine. - 0028-4793. ; 363:6, s. 532-541
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND Hereditary angioedema is characterized by recurrent attacks of angioedema of the skin, larynx, and gastrointestinal tract. Bradykinin is the key mediator of symptoms. Icatibant is a selective bradykinin B2 receptor antagonist. METHODS In two double-blind, randomized, multicenter trials, we evaluated the effect of icatibant in patients with hereditary angioedema presenting with cutaneous or abdominal attacks. In the For Angioedema Subcutaneous Treatment (FAST) 1 trial, patients received either icatibant or placebo; in FAST-2, patients received either icatibant or oral tranexamic acid, at a dose of 3 g daily for 2 days. Icatibant was given once, subcutaneously, at a dose of 30 mg. The primary end point was the median time to clinically significant relief of symptoms. RESULTS A total of 56 and 74 patients underwent randomization in the FAST-1 and FAST-2 trials, respectively. The primary end point was reached in 2.5 hours with icatibant versus 4.6 hours with placebo in the FAST-1 trial (P=0.14) and in 2.0 hours with icatibant versus 12.0 hours with tranexamic acid in the FAST-2 trial (P<0.001). In the FAST-1 study, 3 recipients of icatibant and 13 recipients of placebo needed treatment with rescue medication. The median time to first improvement of symptoms, as assessed by patients and by investigators, was significantly shorter with icatibant in both trials. No icatibant-related serious adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS In patients with hereditary angioedema having acute attacks, we found a significant benefit of icatibant as compared with tranexamic acid in one trial and a nonsignificant benefit of icatibant as compared with placebo in the other trial with regard to the primary end point. The early use of rescue medication may have obscured the benefit of icatibant in the placebo trial. (Funded by Jerini; ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00097695 and NCT00500656.)
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
- Gerotziafas, GT, et al.
(författare)
-
Guidance for the Management of Patients with Vascular Disease or Cardiovascular Risk Factors and COVID-19: Position Paper from VAS-European Independent Foundation in Angiology/Vascular Medicine
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Thrombosis and haemostasis. - : Georg Thieme Verlag KG. - 2567-689X .- 0340-6245. ; 120:12, s. 1597-1628
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- COVID-19 is also manifested with hypercoagulability, pulmonary intravascular coagulation, microangiopathy, and venous thromboembolism (VTE) or arterial thrombosis. Predisposing risk factors to severe COVID-19 are male sex, underlying cardiovascular disease, or cardiovascular risk factors including noncontrolled diabetes mellitus or arterial hypertension, obesity, and advanced age. The VAS-European Independent Foundation in Angiology/Vascular Medicine draws attention to patients with vascular disease (VD) and presents an integral strategy for the management of patients with VD or cardiovascular risk factors (VD-CVR) and COVID-19. VAS recommends (1) a COVID-19-oriented primary health care network for patients with VD-CVR for identification of patients with VD-CVR in the community and patients' education for disease symptoms, use of eHealth technology, adherence to the antithrombotic and vascular regulating treatments, and (2) close medical follow-up for efficacious control of VD progression and prompt application of physical and social distancing measures in case of new epidemic waves. For patients with VD-CVR who receive home treatment for COVID-19, VAS recommends assessment for (1) disease worsening risk and prioritized hospitalization of those at high risk and (2) VTE risk assessment and thromboprophylaxis with rivaroxaban, betrixaban, or low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) for those at high risk. For hospitalized patients with VD-CVR and COVID-19, VAS recommends (1) routine thromboprophylaxis with weight-adjusted intermediate doses of LMWH (unless contraindication); (2) LMWH as the drug of choice over unfractionated heparin or direct oral anticoagulants for the treatment of VTE or hypercoagulability; (3) careful evaluation of the risk for disease worsening and prompt application of targeted antiviral or convalescence treatments; (4) monitoring of D-dimer for optimization of the antithrombotic treatment; and (5) evaluation of the risk of VTE before hospital discharge using the IMPROVE-D-dimer score and prolonged post-discharge thromboprophylaxis with rivaroxaban, betrixaban, or LMWH.
|
|
