| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- 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.
|
|
| 7. |
- Buchanan, E. M., et al.
(författare)
-
The Psychological Science Accelerator's COVID-19 rapid-response dataset
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Scientific Data. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 2052-4463. ; 10:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Psychological Science Accelerator coordinated three large-scale psychological studies to examine the effects of loss-gain framing, cognitive reappraisals, and autonomy framing manipulations on behavioral intentions and affective measures. The data collected (April to October 2020) included specific measures for each experimental study, a general questionnaire examining health prevention behaviors and COVID-19 experience, geographical and cultural context characterization, and demographic information for each participant. Each participant started the study with the same general questions and then was randomized to complete either one longer experiment or two shorter experiments. Data were provided by 73,223 participants with varying completion rates. Participants completed the survey from 111 geopolitical regions in 44 unique languages/dialects. The anonymized dataset described here is provided in both raw and processed formats to facilitate re-use and further analyses. The dataset offers secondary analytic opportunities to explore coping, framing, and self-determination across a diverse, global sample obtained at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, which can be merged with other time-sampled or geographic data.
|
|
| 8. |
- Jones, Benedict C, et al.
(författare)
-
To which world regions does the valence-dominance model of social perception apply?
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Nature Human Behaviour. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 2397-3374. ; 5:1, s. 159-169
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Over the past 10 years, Oosterhof and Todorov's valence-dominance model has emerged as the most prominent account of how people evaluate faces on social dimensions. In this model, two dimensions (valence and dominance) underpin social judgements of faces. Because this model has primarily been developed and tested in Western regions, it is unclear whether these findings apply to other regions. We addressed this question by replicating Oosterhof and Todorov's methodology across 11 world regions, 41 countries and 11,570 participants. When we used Oosterhof and Todorov's original analysis strategy, the valence-dominance model generalized across regions. When we used an alternative methodology to allow for correlated dimensions, we observed much less generalization. Collectively, these results suggest that, while the valence-dominance model generalizes very well across regions when dimensions are forced to be orthogonal, regional differences are revealed when we use different extraction methods and correlate and rotate the dimension reduction solution. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: The stage 1 protocol for this Registered Report was accepted in principle on 5 November 2018. The protocol, as accepted by the journal, can be found at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.7611443.v1 .
|
|
| 9. |
- Hsu, Y. H., et al.
(författare)
-
Meta-Analysis of Genomewide Association Studies Reveals Genetic Variants for Hip Bone Geometry
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Journal of Bone and Mineral Research. - : Wiley. - 0884-0431 .- 1523-4681. ; 34:7, s. 1284-1296
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Hip geometry is an important predictor of fracture. We performed a meta-analysis of GWAS studies in adults to identify genetic variants that are associated with proximal femur geometry phenotypes. We analyzed four phenotypes: (i) femoral neck length; (ii) neck-shaft angle; (iii) femoral neck width, and (iv) femoral neck section modulus, estimated from DXA scans using algorithms of hip structure analysis. In the Discovery stage, 10 cohort studies were included in the fixed-effect meta-analysis, with up to 18,719 men and women ages 16 to 93 years. Association analyses were performed with similar to 2.5 million polymorphisms under an additive model adjusted for age, body mass index, and height. Replication analyses of meta-GWAS significant loci (at adjusted genomewide significance [GWS], threshold p <= 2.6 x 10(-8)) were performed in seven additional cohorts in silico. We looked up SNPs associated in our analysis, for association with height, bone mineral density (BMD), and fracture. In meta-analysis (combined Discovery and Replication stages), GWS associations were found at 5p15 (IRX1 and ADAMTS16); 5q35 near FGFR4; at 12p11 (in CCDC91); 11q13 (near LRP5 and PPP6R3 (rs7102273)). Several hip geometry signals overlapped with BMD, including LRP5 (chr. 11). Chr. 11 SNP rs7102273 was associated with any-type fracture (p = 7.5 x 10(-5)). We used bone transcriptome data and discovered several significant eQTLs, including rs7102273 and PPP6R3 expression (p = 0.0007), and rs6556301 (intergenic, chr.5 near FGFR4) and PDLIM7 expression (p = 0.005). In conclusion, we found associations between several genes and hip geometry measures that explained 12% to 22% of heritability at different sites. The results provide a defined set of genes related to biological pathways relevant to BMD and etiology of bone fragility. (c) 2019 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.
|
|
| 10. |
- Estrada, Karol, et al.
(författare)
-
Genome-wide meta-analysis identifies 56 bone mineral density loci and reveals 14 loci associated with risk of fracture.
- 2012
-
Ingår i: Nature genetics. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1546-1718 .- 1061-4036. ; 44:5, s. 491-501
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Bone mineral density (BMD) is the most widely used predictor of fracture risk. We performed the largest meta-analysis to date on lumbar spine and femoral neck BMD, including 17 genome-wide association studies and 32,961 individuals of European and east Asian ancestry. We tested the top BMD-associated markers for replication in 50,933 independent subjects and for association with risk of low-trauma fracture in 31,016 individuals with a history of fracture (cases) and 102,444 controls. We identified 56 loci (32 new) associated with BMD at genome-wide significance (P < 5 × 10(-8)). Several of these factors cluster within the RANK-RANKL-OPG, mesenchymal stem cell differentiation, endochondral ossification and Wnt signaling pathways. However, we also discovered loci that were localized to genes not known to have a role in bone biology. Fourteen BMD-associated loci were also associated with fracture risk (P < 5 × 10(-4), Bonferroni corrected), of which six reached P < 5 × 10(-8), including at 18p11.21 (FAM210A), 7q21.3 (SLC25A13), 11q13.2 (LRP5), 4q22.1 (MEPE), 2p16.2 (SPTBN1) and 10q21.1 (DKK1). These findings shed light on the genetic architecture and pathophysiological mechanisms underlying BMD variation and fracture susceptibility.
|
|
