| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- 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.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 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. |
|
|
