| 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.
|
|
| 3. |
- Ghalwash, Mohamed, et al.
(författare)
-
Islet autoantibody screening in at-risk adolescents to predict type 1 diabetes until young adulthood : a prospective cohort study
- 2023
-
Ingår i: The Lancet Child and Adolescent Health. - 2352-4642. ; 7:4, s. 261-268
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Screening for islet autoantibodies in children and adolescents identifies individuals who will later develop type 1 diabetes, allowing patient and family education to prevent diabetic ketoacidosis at onset and to enable consideration of preventive therapies. We aimed to assess whether islet autoantibody screening is effective for predicting type 1 diabetes in adolescents aged 10−18 years with an increased risk of developing type 1 diabetes. Methods: Data were harmonised from prospective studies from Finland (the Diabetes Prediction and Prevention study), Germany (the BABYDIAB study), and the USA (Diabetes Autoimmunity Study in the Young and the Diabetes Evaluation in Washington study). Autoantibodies against insulin, glutamic acid decarboxylase, and insulinoma-associated protein 2 were measured at each follow-up visit. Children who were lost to follow-up or diagnosed with type 1 diabetes before 10 years of age were excluded. Inverse probability censoring weighting was used to include data from remaining participants. Sensitivity and the positive predictive value of these autoantibodies, tested at one or two ages, to predict type 1 diabetes by the age of 18 years were the main outcomes. Findings: Of 20 303 children with an increased type 1 diabetes risk, 8682 were included for the analysis with inverse probability censoring weighting. 1890 were followed up to 18 years of age or developed type 1 diabetes between the ages of 10 years and 18 years, and their median follow-up was 18·3 years (IQR 14·5–20·3). 442 (23·4%) of 1890 adolescents were positive for at least one islet autoantibody, and 262 (13·9%) developed type 1 diabetes. Time from seroconversion to diabetes diagnosis increased by 0·64 years (95% CI 0·34–0·95) for each 1-year increment of diagnosis age (Pearson's correlation coefficient 0·88, 95% CI 0·50–0·97, p=0·0020). The median interval between the last prediagnostic sample and diagnosis was 0·3 years (IQR 0·1–1·3) in the 227 participants who were autoantibody positive and 6·8 years (1·6–9·9) for the 35 who were autoantibody negative. Single screening at the age of 10 years was 90% (95% CI 86–95) sensitive, with a positive predictive value of 66% (60–72) for clinical diabetes. Screening at two ages (10 years and 14 years) increased sensitivity to 93% (95% CI 89–97) but lowered the positive predictive value to 55% (49–60). Interpretation: Screening of adolescents at risk for type 1 diabetes only once at 10 years of age for islet autoantibodies was highly effective to detect type 1 diabetes by the age of 18 years, which in turn could enable prevention of diabetic ketoacidosis and participation in secondary prevention trials. Funding: JDRF International.
|
|
