| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- 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.
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
- Durno, C., et al.
(författare)
-
Survival Benefit for Individuals With Constitutional Mismatch Repair Deficiency Undergoing Surveillance
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Journal of Clinical Oncology. - : American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). - 0732-183X .- 1527-7755. ; 39:25
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- PURPOSE Constitutional mismatch repair deficiency syndrome (CMMRD) is a lethal cancer predisposition syndrome characterized by early-onset synchronous and metachronous multiorgan tumors. We designed a surveillance protocol for early tumor detection in these individuals. PATIENTS AND METHODS Data were collected from patients with confirmed CMMRD who were registered in the International Replication Repair Deficiency Consortium. Tumor spectrum, efficacy of the surveillance protocol, and malignant transformation of low-grade lesions were examined for the entire cohort. Survival outcomes were analyzed for patients followed prospectively from the time of surveillance implementation. RESULTS A total of 193 malignant tumors in 110 patients were identified. Median age of first cancer diagnosis was 9.2 years (range: 1.7-39.5 years). For patients undergoing surveillance, all GI and other solid tumors, and 75% of brain cancers were detected asymptomatically. By contrast, only 16% of hematologic malignancies were detected asymptomatically (P < .001). Eighty-nine patients were followed prospectively and used for survival analysis. Five-year overall survival (OS) was 90% (95% CI, 78.6 to 100) and 50% (95% CI, 39.2 to 63.7) when cancer was detected asymptomatically and symptomatically, respectively (P = .001). Patient outcome measured by adherence to the surveillance protocol revealed 4-year OS of 79% (95% CI, 54.8 to 90.9) for patients undergoing full surveillance, 55% (95% CI, 28.5 to 74.5) for partial surveillance, and 15% (95% CI, 5.2 to 28.8) for those not under surveillance (P < .0001). Of the 64 low-grade tumors detected, the cumulative likelihood of transformation from low-to high-grade was 81% for GI cancers within 8 years and 100% for gliomas in 6 years. CONCLUSION Surveillance and early cancer detection are associated with improved OS for individuals with CMMRD.
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
