| 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. |
- Klionsky, Daniel J., et al.
(författare)
-
Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy in higher eukaryotes
- 2008
-
Ingår i: Autophagy. - : Landes Bioscience. - 1554-8627 .- 1554-8635. ; 4:2, s. 151-175
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Research in autophagy continues to accelerate,1 and as a result many new scientists are entering the field. Accordingly, it is important to establish a standard set of criteria for monitoring macroautophagy in different organisms. Recent reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose.2,3 There are many useful and convenient methods that can be used to monitor macroautophagy in yeast, but relatively few in other model systems, and there is much confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure macroautophagy in higher eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers of autophagosomes versus those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway; thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from fully functional autophagy that includes delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of the methods that can be used by investigators who are attempting to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as by reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that investigate these processes. This set of guidelines is 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 verify an autophagic response.
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- Dures, E., et al.
(författare)
-
2023 EULAR recommendations for the management of fatigue in people with inflammatory rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. - 0003-4967 .- 1468-2060.
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objectives Fatigue is prevalent in people with inflammatory rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (I-RMDs) and recognised as one of the most challenging symptoms to manage. The existence of multiple factors associated with driving and maintaining fatigue, and the evidence about what improves fatigue has led to a multifaceted approach to its management. However, there are no recommendations for fatigue management in people with I-RMDs. This lack of guidance is challenging for those living with fatigue and health professionals delivering clinical care. Therefore, our aim was to develop EULAR recommendations for the management of fatigue in people with I-RMDs.Methods A multidisciplinary taskforce comprising 26 members from 14 European countries was convened, and two systematic reviews were conducted. The taskforce developed the recommendations based on the systematic review of evidence supplemented with taskforce members' experience of fatigue in I-RMDs.Results Four overarching principles (OAPs) and four recommendations were developed. OAPs include health professionals' awareness that fatigue encompasses multiple biological, psychological and social factors which should inform clinical care. Fatigue should be monitored and assessed, and people with I-RMDs should be offered management options. Recommendations include offering tailored physical activity and/or tailored psychoeducational interventions and/or, if clinically indicated, immunomodulatory treatment initiation or change. Patient-centred fatigue management should consider the individual's needs and preferences, their clinical disease activity, comorbidities and other psychosocial and contextual factors through shared decision-making.Conclusions These 2023 EULAR recommendations provide consensus and up-to-date guidance on fatigue management in people with I-RMDs.
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
- Sperl, L, et al.
(författare)
-
EDUCATIONAL NEEDS AMONG HEALTH PROFESSIONALS IN RHEUMATOLOGY: LOW AWARENESS OF EULAR OFFERINGS AND UNFAMILIARITY WITH COURSE CONTENT AS A MAJOR BARRIER - A EULAR FUNDED EUROPEAN SURVEY
- 2022
-
Ingår i: ANNALS OF THE RHEUMATIC DISEASES. - : BMJ. - 0003-4967 .- 1468-2060. ; 81, s. 139-140
-
Konferensbidrag (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Health professionals in rheumatology (HPRs) should participate in post-graduate or continuous education to update and advance their knowledge and skills. This can improve patient outcomes and increase quality of care.1 EULAR aims to become a leading provider of postgraduate education for HPRs.ObjectivesThe aims of this study were to evaluate the current motivations for participating in postgraduate education of HPRs, identify barriers and facilitators for participation in postgraduate education, and evaluate participation in the current educational offerings of EULAR for HPRs across Europe.MethodsAn online survey was developed and distributed in collaboration with the EULAR Standing Committee of Education and Training (ESCET) and the Paediatric Rheumatology European Society (PReS). The questionnaire was translated by national HPR representatives in 24 languages to cover the 25 national member organisations. Barriers were assessed using 5-point Likert scales, higher scores representing higher barriers. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics. In addition, we ran the Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) on the answers to the open questions. LDA is an unsupervised probabilistic topic modelling technique that extracts the meanings of a pre-defined number of topics. Design of the survey and reporting of results were done according to the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES).ResultsThe online questionnaire was accessed 3,589 times but only 667 complete responses were recorded. HPRs from 34 European countries responded to the survey; 80% of whom were women. The highest-ranked educational need was prevention, including lifestyle interventions and professional development. Although EULAR was well known among HPRs, only 32.1% of HPRs in adult care and 18.6% of HPRs in paediatric care have ever heard of the EULAR School of Rheumatology (Table 1 A).Table 1.A: Feedback on EULAR. Data are presented separately for HPRs in adult and paediatric care; except for the filter questions, no mandatory questions were included in the survey. To clarify the number of responses per question, the number of valid answers for each question was reported.VariablesHPRs in adult careHPRs in paediatric careHave you ever heard of the EULAR School of Rheumatology?61443 I am not sure, n(%)62 (10.1%)7 (16.3%) No, n(%)355 (57.8%)28 (65.1%) Yes, n(%)197 (32.1%)8 (18.6%)Are you aware of courses offered by the EULAR School of Rheumatology? (sub question)1978 I am not sure, n(%)30 (15.2%)2 (25.0%) No, n(%)63 (32.0%)5 (62.5%) Yes, n(%)104 (52.8%)1 (12.5%)Have you ever attended one of the EULAR School of Rheumatology courses? (sub question)1031 I am not sure, n(%)1 (1.0%)0 No, n(%)47 (45.6%)0 Yes, n(%)55 (53.4%)1 (100%)Have you ever participated in a EULAR annual congress meeting?61843 I am not sure, n(%)11 (1.8%)0 No, n(%)457 (73.9%)39 (90.7%) Yes, n(%)150 (24.3%)4 (9.3%)The main barriers to participation in EULAR’s educational offerings were identified by HPRs in adult care and in paediatric care (respectively) as: the unfamiliarity with the course content (3.48 [±1.50]; 3.92 [±1.46]), the associated costs (3.44 [±1.35]; 3.69 [±1.28]) and English language (2.59 [±1.50]; 2.80 [±1.34]).ConclusionEULAR is well-known by HPRs in Europe, however, awareness of educational offerings is low and barriers to participation are numerous. To become the leading provider of postgraduate training by 2023, EULAR could use a “franchise” model that can be tailored to local conditions. This could be achieved by strengthening national organizations by actively involving them in the development of training programs and disseminating these programs and offerings through their networks.References[1]World Health Organization. Health workforce: Education and training: World Health Organization; 2019 [Available from: https://www.who.int/hrh/education/en/ accessed November, 2019 2019.Disclosure of InterestsLisa Sperl: None declared, Tanja Stamm Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, and Takeda, Consultant of: AbbVie and Sanofi Genzyme, Grant/research support from: AbbVie and Roche, Margaret Renn Andrews: None declared, Mathilda Bjork: None declared, Carina Boström: None declared, Jeannette Cappon: None declared, Jenny de la Torre-Aboki: None declared, Annette de Thurah: None declared, Andrea Domjan: None declared, Razvan Dragoi Speakers bureau: Received speaker fees last year from: Pfizer, Elly Lilly, Sandoz, Abbvie, Secom, EwoPharma, Fernando Estevez-Lopez: None declared, Ricardo J. O. Ferreira: None declared, George E. Fragoulis: None declared, Jolanta Grygielska: None declared, Katti Korve: None declared, Marja Leena Kukkurainen: None declared, Christel Madelaine-Bonjour: None declared, Andrea Marques: None declared, Jorit Meesters: None declared, Rikke Helene Moe: None declared, Ellen Moholt: None declared, Erika Mosor: None declared, Claudia Naimer-Stach: None declared, Mwidimi Ndosi: None declared, Polina Pchelnikova: None declared, Jette Primdahl: None declared, Polina Putrik: None declared, Anne-Kathrin Rausch Osthoff: None declared, Hana Smucrova: None declared, Sinisa Stefanac: None declared, Marco Testa: None declared, Leti van Bodegom-Vos: None declared, Wilfred Peter: None declared, Heidi A. Zangi: None declared, Olena Zimba: None declared, T.P.M. Vliet Vlieland: None declared, Valentin Ritschl: None declared
|
|
