| 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. |
- Battaglia, Manuela, et al.
(författare)
-
Introducing the Endotype Concept to Address the Challenge of Disease Heterogeneity in Type 1 Diabetes
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Diabetes Care. - : American Diabetes Association. - 1935-5548 .- 0149-5992. ; 43:1, s. 5-12
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The clinical diagnosis of new-onset type 1 diabetes has, for many years, been considered relatively straightforward. Recently, however, there is increasing awareness that within this single clinical phenotype exists considerable heterogeneity: disease onset spans the complete age range; genetic susceptibility is complex; rates of progression differ markedly, as does insulin secretory capacity; and complication rates, glycemic control, and therapeutic intervention efficacy vary widely. Mechanistic and immunopathological studies typically show considerable patchiness across subjects, undermining conclusions regarding disease pathways. Without better understanding, type 1 diabetes heterogeneity represents a major barrier both to deciphering pathogenesis and to the translational effort of designing, conducting, and interpreting clinical trials of disease-modifying agents. This realization comes during a period of unprecedented change in clinical medicine, with increasing emphasis on greater individualization and precision. For complex disorders such as type 1 diabetes, the option of maintaining the "single disease" approach appears untenable, as does the notion of individualizing each single patient's care, obliging us to conceptualize type 1 diabetes less in terms of phenotypes (observable characteristics) and more in terms of disease endotypes (underlying biological mechanisms). Here, we provide our view on an approach to dissect heterogeneity in type 1 diabetes. Using lessons from other diseases and the data gathered to date, we aim to delineate a roadmap through which the field can incorporate the endotype concept into laboratory and clinical practice. We predict that such an effort will accelerate the implementation of precision medicine and has the potential for impact on our approach to translational research, trial design, and clinical management.
|
|
| 3. |
- Haghighi, Mona, et al.
(författare)
-
A Comparison of Rule-based Analysis with Regression Methods in Understanding the Risk Factors for Study Withdrawal in a Pediatric Study
- 2016
-
Ingår i: Scientific Reports. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 2045-2322. ; 6
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Regression models are extensively used in many epidemiological studies to understand the linkage between specific outcomes of interest and their risk factors. However, regression models in general examine the average effects of the risk factors and ignore subgroups with different risk profiles. As a result, interventions are often geared towards the average member of the population, without consideration of the special health needs of different subgroups within the population. This paper demonstrates the value of using rule-based analysis methods that can identify subgroups with heterogeneous risk profiles in a population without imposing assumptions on the subgroups or method. The rules define the risk pattern of subsets of individuals by not only considering the interactions between the risk factors but also their ranges. We compared the rule-based analysis results with the results from a logistic regression model in The Environmental Determinants of Diabetes in the Young (TEDDY) study. Both methods detected a similar suite of risk factors, but the rule-based analysis was superior at detecting multiple interactions between the risk factors that characterize the subgroups. A further investigation of the particular characteristics of each subgroup may detect the special health needs of the subgroup and lead to tailored interventions.
|
|
