| 1. |
- 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.
|
|
| 2. |
- Ruck, Kate, et al.
(författare)
-
International access to research infrastructure in the Arctic
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Polar Record. - : Cambridge University Press. - 0032-2474 .- 1475-3057. ; 58
-
Tidskriftsartikel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Reliable access to Arctic research infrastructure is critical to the future of polar science. In cultivating proposals, it is essential that researchers have a deep understanding of existing platforms when selecting the appropriate research site and experimental design for projects. However, Arctic infrastructure platforms are often funded as national assets, and choices for what would be the best platform for the project are sometimes at odds with a researcher’s ability to gain access. Researchers from Arctic and non-Arctic nations are poised to benefit from reducing barriers and increasing cooperation around transnational access to Arctic infrastructure, allowing scientists to successfully execute the research that is most needed rather than what is just logistically feasible. This commentary provides a summary of findings from a workshop held at the 2021 Arctic Science Summit Week to discuss navigating “transnational” or “cross-border” access to national research infrastructure. This workshop brought together users and operators of Arctic infrastructure platforms with the three goals of identifying challenges, best practices, and possible next steps for improved collaboration.
|
|
| 3. |
- Xiao, Wenming, et al.
(författare)
-
Toward best practice in cancer mutation detection with whole-genome and whole-exome sequencing
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Nature Biotechnology. - : Springer Nature. - 1087-0156 .- 1546-1696. ; 39:9, s. 1141-1150
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Recommendations are given on optimal read coverage and selection of calling algorithm to maximize the reproducibility of cancer mutation detection in whole-genome or whole-exome sequencing. Clinical applications of precision oncology require accurate tests that can distinguish true cancer-specific mutations from errors introduced at each step of next-generation sequencing (NGS). To date, no bulk sequencing study has addressed the effects of cross-site reproducibility, nor the biological, technical and computational factors that influence variant identification. Here we report a systematic interrogation of somatic mutations in paired tumor-normal cell lines to identify factors affecting detection reproducibility and accuracy at six different centers. Using whole-genome sequencing (WGS) and whole-exome sequencing (WES), we evaluated the reproducibility of different sample types with varying input amount and tumor purity, and multiple library construction protocols, followed by processing with nine bioinformatics pipelines. We found that read coverage and callers affected both WGS and WES reproducibility, but WES performance was influenced by insert fragment size, genomic copy content and the global imbalance score (GIV; G > T/C > A). Finally, taking into account library preparation protocol, tumor content, read coverage and bioinformatics processes concomitantly, we recommend actionable practices to improve the reproducibility and accuracy of NGS experiments for cancer mutation detection.
|
|
