| 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. |
- López-Fauqued, M., et al.
(författare)
-
Safety profile of the adjuvanted recombinant zoster vaccine : Pooled analysis of two large randomised phase 3 trials
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Vaccine. - : Elsevier Ltd. - 0264-410X .- 1873-2518. ; 37:18, s. 2482-2493
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: The ZOE-50 (NCT01165177) and ZOE-70 (NCT01165229) phase 3 clinical trials showed that the adjuvanted recombinant zoster vaccine (RZV) was ≥90% efficacious in preventing herpes zoster in adults. Here we present a comprehensive overview of the safety data from these studies. Methods: Adults aged ≥50 (ZOE-50) and ≥70 (ZOE-70) years were randomly vaccinated with RZV or placebo. Safety analyses were performed on the pooled total vaccinated cohort, consisting of participants receiving at least one dose of RZV or placebo. Solicited and unsolicited adverse events (AEs) were collected for 7 and 30 days after each vaccination, respectively. Serious AEs (SAEs) were collected from the first vaccination until 12 months post-last dose. Fatal AEs, vaccination-related SAEs, and potential immune-mediated diseases (pIMDs) were collected during the entire study period. Results: Safety was evaluated in 14,645 RZV and 14,660 placebo recipients. More RZV than placebo recipients reported unsolicited AEs (50.5% versus 32.0%); the difference was driven by transient injection site and solicited systemic reactions that were generally seen in the first week post-vaccination. The occurrence of overall SAEs (RZV: 10.1%; Placebo: 10.4%), fatal AEs (RZV: 4.3%; Placebo: 4.6%), and pIMDs (RZV: 1.2%; Placebo: 1.4%) was balanced between groups. The occurrence of possible exacerbations of pIMDs was rare and similar between groups. Overall, except for the expected local and systemic symptoms, the safety results were comparable between the RZV and Placebo groups irrespective of participant age, gender, or race. Conclusions: No safety concerns arose, supporting the favorable benefit-risk profile of RZV. © 2019 GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA
|
|
