| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- 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.
|
|
| 6. |
- Nijs, Jo, et al.
(författare)
-
Nociceptive, neuropathic, or nociplastic low back pain? : The low back pain phenotyping (BACPAP) consortium's international and multidisciplinary consensus recommendations
- 2024
-
Ingår i: LANCET RHEUMATOLOGY. - : Elsevier. - 2665-9913. ; 6:3, s. e178-e188
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The potential to classify low back pain as being characterised by dominant nociceptive, neuropathic, or nociplastic mechanisms is a clinically relevant issue. Preliminary evidence suggests that these low back pain phenotypes might respond differently to treatments; however, more research must be done before making specific recommendations. Accordingly, the low back pain phenotyping (BACPAP) consortium was established as a group of 36 clinicians and researchers from 13 countries (five continents) and 29 institutions, to apply a modified Nominal Group Technique methodology to develop international and multidisciplinary consensus recommendations to provide guidance for identifying the dominant pain phenotype in patients with low back pain, and potentially adapt pain management strategies. The BACPAP consortium's recommendations are also intended to provide direction for future clinical research by building on the established clinical criteria for neuropathic and nociplastic pain. The BACPAP consortium's consensus recommendations are a necessary early step in the process to determine if personalised pain medicine based on pain phenotypes is feasible for low back pain management. Therefore, these recommendations are not ready to be implemented in clinical practice until additional evidence is generated that is specific to these low back pain phenotypes.
|
|
