| 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. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Bravo, L, et al.
(författare)
-
- 2021
-
swepub:Mat__t
|
|
| 4. |
- Tabiri, S, et al.
(författare)
-
- 2021
-
swepub:Mat__t
|
|
| 5. |
-
- 2019
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
- Rich, Rebecca L., et al.
(författare)
-
A global benchmark study using affinity-based biosensors
- 2009
-
Ingår i: Analytical Biochemistry. - : Elsevier BV. - 0003-2697 .- 1096-0309. ; 386:2, s. 194-216
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- To explore the variability in biosensor studies, 150 participants from 20 countries were given the same protein samples and asked to determine kinetic rate constants for the interaction. We chose a protein system that was amenable to analysis using different biosensor platforms as well as by users of different expertise levels. The two proteins (a 50-kDa Fab and a 60-kDa glutathione S-transferase [GST] antigen) form a relatively high-affinity complex, so participants needed to optimize several experimental parameters, including ligand immobilization and regeneration conditions as well as analyte concentrations and injection/dissociation times. Although most participants collected binding responses that could be fit to yield kinetic parameters, the quality of a few data sets could have been improved by optimizing the assay design. Once these outliers were removed, the average reported affinity across the remaining panel of participants was 620 pM with a standard deviation of 980 pM. These results demonstrate that when this biosensor assay was designed and executed appropriately, the reported rate constants were consistent, and independent of which protein was immobilized and which biosensor was used.
|
|
| 8. |
- Schneider, Gary, et al.
(författare)
-
Weight and Height in Children and Adolescents with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: A Longitudinal Database Study Assessing the Impact of Guanfacine, Stimulants, and No Pharmacotherapy
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Journal of child and adolescent psychopharmacology. - : MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC. - 1044-5463 .- 1557-8992. ; 29:4, s. 285-304
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objectives: To assess the impact of long-term pharmacotherapy with guanfacine immediate- or extended-release (GXR), administered alone or as an adjunctive to a stimulant, on weight and height in children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Methods: Data were extracted from U.S. Department of Defense medical records for patients 4-17 years of age at index date (initiation of any study medication following a year without ADHD medications, or diagnosis if unmedicated) with weight/height measurements for the analysis period (January 2009-June 2013) and the previous year (baseline). Longitudinal weight and height z-scores were analyzed using multivariable regression in three cohorts: guanfacine (initial period of guanfacine exposure), first-line stimulant monotherapy (initial period of exposure), and unmedicated. Guanfacine cohort subgroups were based on previous/concurrent stimulant exposure. Results: The weight analyses included 47,910 patients (66.8% male) and the height analyses 41,248 (67.2% male). Mean initial exposure in the weight analyses was 237 days (standard deviation [SD] = 258, median = 142) for guanfacine and 257 days (SD = 284, median = 151) for first-line stimulant monotherapy, and was similar in the height analyses. Modeling indicated that guanfacine monotherapy was not associated with clinically meaningful deviations from normal z-score trajectories for weight (first-line, n = 943; nonfirst-line, n = 796) or height (first-line, n = 741; nonfirst-line, n = 644). In patients receiving guanfacine adjunctive to a stimulant, modeled weight (n = 1657) and height (n = 1343) z-scores followed declining trajectories. In this subgroup, mean standardized weight/height had decreased during previous stimulant monotherapy. For first-line stimulant monotherapy, modeled weight (n = 32,999) and height (n = 28,470) z-scores followed declining trajectories during year 1. In the unmedicated cohort, modeled weight (n = 11,515) and height (n = 10,050) z-scores were stable. Conclusions: Guanfacine monotherapy (first-line or nonfirst-line) was not associated with marked deviations from normal growth in this modeling study of children and adolescents with ADHD. In contrast, growth trajectories followed an initially declining course with stimulants, whether given alone or with adjunctive guanfacine.
|
|
| 9. |
- Glasbey, JC, et al.
(författare)
-
- 2021
-
swepub:Mat__t
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
