| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
-
- 2019
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)
|
|
| 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. |
- Ablikim, M., et al.
(författare)
-
Observation of the decay psi(3686) -> Lambda(Sigma)over-bar(+/-) pi(-/+) + c.c
- 2013
-
Ingår i: Physical Review D. - 1550-7998 .- 1550-2368. ; 88:11, s. 112007-
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Using a sample of 1:06 X 10(8) psi(3686) events collected with the BESIII detector, we present the first observation of the decays of psi(3686) -> Lambda(Sigma) over bar (+) pi(-) + c.c. and psi(3686) -> Lambda(Sigma) over bar (-) pi(+) + c.c. The branching fractions are measured to be B(psi(3686) -> Lambda(Sigma) over bar (+) pi(-) + c.c.) = (1.40 +/- 0.03 +/- 0.13) X 10(-4) and B(psi(3686) -> Lambda (Sigma) over bar (-) pi(+) + c.c.) = (1.54 +/- 0.04 +/- 0.13) X 10(-4) where the first errors are statistical and the second ones systematic.
|
|
| 8. |
- Ablikim, M., et al.
(författare)
-
Search for eta(c)(2S)h(c) -> p(p)over-bar decays and measurements of the chi(cJ) -> p(p)over-bar branching fractions
- 2013
-
Ingår i: Physical Review D. - 1550-7998 .- 1550-2368. ; 88:11, s. 112001-
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Using a sample of 1.06 x 10(8)psi(3686) events collected with the BESIII detector at BEPCII, the decays eta(c)(2S) -> p (p) over bar and h(c) -> p (p) over bar are searched for, where eta(c)(2S) and h(c) are reconstructed in the decay chains psi(3686) -> gamma eta(c)(2S), eta(c)(2S) -> p (p) over bar and psi(3686) -> pi(0)h(c), h(c) -> p (p) over bar, respectively. No significant signals are observed. The upper limits of the product branching fractions are determined to be B(psi(3686) -> gamma eta(c)(2S)) x B(eta(c)(2S) -> p (p) over bar) < 1.4 x 10(-6) and B(psi(3686) -> pi(0)h(c)) x B(h(c) -> p<(p)over bar>) < 1.3 x 10(-7) at the 90% C.L.. The branching fractions for chi(cJ) -> p<(p)over bar> (J = 0, 1, 2) are also measured to be (24.5 +/- 0.8 +/- 1.3, 8.6 +/- 0.5 +/- 0.5, 8.4 +/- 0.5 +/- 0.5) x 10(-5), which are the world's most precise measurements.
|
|
| 9. |
- Kristanl, Matej, et al.
(författare)
-
The Seventh Visual Object Tracking VOT2019 Challenge Results
- 2019
-
Ingår i: 2019 IEEE/CVF INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON COMPUTER VISION WORKSHOPS (ICCVW). - : IEEE COMPUTER SOC. - 9781728150239 ; , s. 2206-2241
-
Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)abstract
- The Visual Object Tracking challenge VOT2019 is the seventh annual tracker benchmarking activity organized by the VOT initiative. Results of 81 trackers are presented; many are state-of-the-art trackers published at major computer vision conferences or in journals in the recent years. The evaluation included the standard VOT and other popular methodologies for short-term tracking analysis as well as the standard VOT methodology for long-term tracking analysis. The VOT2019 challenge was composed of five challenges focusing on different tracking domains: (i) VOT-ST2019 challenge focused on short-term tracking in RGB, (ii) VOT-RT2019 challenge focused on "real-time" short-term tracking in RGB, (iii) VOT-LT2019 focused on long-term tracking namely coping with target disappearance and reappearance. Two new challenges have been introduced: (iv) VOT-RGBT2019 challenge focused on short-term tracking in RGB and thermal imagery and (v) VOT-RGBD2019 challenge focused on long-term tracking in RGB and depth imagery. The VOT-ST2019, VOT-RT2019 and VOT-LT2019 datasets were refreshed while new datasets were introduced for VOT-RGBT2019 and VOT-RGBD2019. The VOT toolkit has been updated to support both standard short-term, long-term tracking and tracking with multi-channel imagery. Performance of the tested trackers typically by far exceeds standard baselines. The source code for most of the trackers is publicly available from the VOT page. The dataset, the evaluation kit and the results are publicly available at the challenge website(1).
|
|
| 10. |
- Zhang, Huai, et al.
(författare)
-
A global survey on the use of the international classification of diseases codes for metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease.
- 2024
-
Ingår i: Hepatology international. - 1936-0541.
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- With the implementation of the 11th edition of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) and the publication of the metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) nomenclature in 2020, it is important to establish consensus for the coding of MAFLD in ICD-11. This will inform subsequent revisions of ICD-11.Using the Qualtrics XM and WJX platforms, questionnaires were sent online to MAFLD-ICD-11 coding collaborators, authors of papers, and relevant association members.A total of 890 international experts in various fields from 61 countries responded to the survey. We also achieved full coverage of provincial-level administrative regions in China. 77.1% of respondents agreed that MAFLD should be represented in ICD-11 by updating NAFLD, with no significant regional differences (77.3% in Asia and 76.6% in non-Asia, p=0.819). Over 80% of respondents agreed or somewhat agreed with the need to assign specific codes for progressive stages of MAFLD (i.e. steatohepatitis) (92.2%), MAFLD combined with comorbidities (84.1%), or MAFLD subtypes (i.e., lean, overweight/obese, and diabetic) (86.1%).This global survey by a collaborative panel of clinical, coding, health management and policy experts, indicates agreement that MAFLD should be coded in ICD-11. The data serves as a foundation for corresponding adjustments in the ICD-11 revision.
|
|
