| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Klionsky, Daniel J., et al.
(author)
-
Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy
- 2012
-
In: Autophagy. - : Informa UK Limited. - 1554-8635 .- 1554-8627. ; 8:4, s. 445-544
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)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.
|
|
| 4. |
- Jansen, Willemijn J, et al.
(author)
-
Prevalence Estimates of Amyloid Abnormality Across the Alzheimer Disease Clinical Spectrum.
- 2022
-
In: JAMA neurology. - : American Medical Association (AMA). - 2168-6157 .- 2168-6149. ; 79:3, s. 228-243
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- One characteristic histopathological event in Alzheimer disease (AD) is cerebral amyloid aggregation, which can be detected by biomarkers in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and on positron emission tomography (PET) scans. Prevalence estimates of amyloid pathology are important for health care planning and clinical trial design.To estimate the prevalence of amyloid abnormality in persons with normal cognition, subjective cognitive decline, mild cognitive impairment, or clinical AD dementia and to examine the potential implications of cutoff methods, biomarker modality (CSF or PET), age, sex, APOE genotype, educational level, geographical region, and dementia severity for these estimates.This cross-sectional, individual-participant pooled study included participants from 85 Amyloid Biomarker Study cohorts. Data collection was performed from January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2020. Participants had normal cognition, subjective cognitive decline, mild cognitive impairment, or clinical AD dementia. Normal cognition and subjective cognitive decline were defined by normal scores on cognitive tests, with the presence of cognitive complaints defining subjective cognitive decline. Mild cognitive impairment and clinical AD dementia were diagnosed according to published criteria.Alzheimer disease biomarkers detected on PET or in CSF.Amyloid measurements were dichotomized as normal or abnormal using cohort-provided cutoffs for CSF or PET or by visual reading for PET. Adjusted data-driven cutoffs for abnormal amyloid were calculated using gaussian mixture modeling. Prevalence of amyloid abnormality was estimated according to age, sex, cognitive status, biomarker modality, APOE carrier status, educational level, geographical location, and dementia severity using generalized estimating equations.Among the 19 097 participants (mean [SD] age, 69.1 [9.8] years; 10 148 women [53.1%]) included, 10 139 (53.1%) underwent an amyloid PET scan and 8958 (46.9%) had an amyloid CSF measurement. Using cohort-provided cutoffs, amyloid abnormality prevalences were similar to 2015 estimates for individuals without dementia and were similar across PET- and CSF-based estimates (24%; 95% CI, 21%-28%) in participants with normal cognition, 27% (95% CI, 21%-33%) in participants with subjective cognitive decline, and 51% (95% CI, 46%-56%) in participants with mild cognitive impairment, whereas for clinical AD dementia the estimates were higher for PET than CSF (87% vs 79%; mean difference, 8%; 95% CI, 0%-16%; P = .04). Gaussian mixture modeling-based cutoffs for amyloid measures on PET scans were similar to cohort-provided cutoffs and were not adjusted. Adjusted CSF cutoffs resulted in a 10% higher amyloid abnormality prevalence than PET-based estimates in persons with normal cognition (mean difference, 9%; 95% CI, 3%-15%; P = .004), subjective cognitive decline (9%; 95% CI, 3%-15%; P = .005), and mild cognitive impairment (10%; 95% CI, 3%-17%; P = .004), whereas the estimates were comparable in persons with clinical AD dementia (mean difference, 4%; 95% CI, -2% to 9%; P = .18).This study found that CSF-based estimates using adjusted data-driven cutoffs were up to 10% higher than PET-based estimates in people without dementia, whereas the results were similar among people with dementia. This finding suggests that preclinical and prodromal AD may be more prevalent than previously estimated, which has important implications for clinical trial recruitment strategies and health care planning policies.
|
|
| 5. |
- Wang, Li-San, et al.
(author)
-
Rarity of the Alzheimer Disease-Protective APP A673T Variant in the United States.
- 2015
-
In: JAMA neurology. - : American Medical Association (AMA). - 2168-6157 .- 2168-6149. ; 72:2
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Recently, a rare variant in the amyloid precursor protein gene (APP) was described in a population from Iceland. This variant, in which alanine is replaced by threonine at position 673 (A673T), appears to protect against late-onset Alzheimer disease (AD). We evaluated the frequency of this variant in AD cases and cognitively normal controls to determine whether this variant will significantly contribute to risk assessment in individuals in the United States.
|
|
| 6. |
- Conley, Robert B., et al.
(author)
-
Secondary Fracture Prevention : Consensus Clinical Recommendations from a Multistakeholder Coalition
- 2020
-
In: Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma. - 0890-5339. ; 34:4, s. 125-141
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Osteoporosis-related fractures are undertreated, due in part to misinformation about recommended approaches to patient care and discrepancies among treatment guidelines. To help bridge this gap and improve patient outcomes, the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research assembled a multistakeholder coalition to develop clinical recommendations for the optimal prevention of secondary fractureamong people aged 65 years and older with a hip or vertebral fracture. The coalition developed 13 recommendations (7 primary and 6 secondary) strongly supported by the empirical literature. The coalition recommends increased communication with patients regarding fracture risk, mortality and morbidity outcomes, and fracture risk reduction. Risk assessment (including fall history) should occur at regular intervals with referral to physical and/or occupational therapy as appropriate. Oral, intravenous, andsubcutaneous pharmacotherapies are efficaciousandcanreduce risk of future fracture.Patientsneededucation,however, about thebenefitsandrisks of both treatment and not receiving treatment. Oral bisphosphonates alendronate and risedronate are first-line options and are generally well tolerated; otherwise, intravenous zoledronic acid and subcutaneous denosumab can be considered. Anabolic agents are expensive butmay be beneficial for selected patients at high risk.Optimal duration of pharmacotherapy is unknown but because the risk for second fractures is highest in the earlypost-fractureperiod,prompt treatment is recommended.Adequate dietary or supplemental vitaminDand calciumintake shouldbe assured. Individuals beingtreatedfor osteoporosis shouldbe reevaluated for fracture risk routinely, includingvia patienteducationabout osteoporosisandfracturesandmonitoringfor adverse treatment effects.Patients shouldbestronglyencouraged to avoid tobacco, consume alcohol inmoderation atmost, and engage in regular exercise and fall prevention strategies. Finally, referral to endocrinologists or other osteoporosis specialists may be warranted for individuals who experience repeated fracture or bone loss and those with complicating comorbidities (eg, hyperparathyroidism, chronic kidney disease).
|
|
| 7. |
- Conley, Robert B., et al.
(author)
-
Secondary Fracture Prevention : Consensus Clinical Recommendations from a Multistakeholder Coalition
- 2020
-
In: Orthopaedic Nursing. - 0744-6020. ; 39:3, s. 145-161
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Osteoporosis-related fractures are undertreated, due in part to misinformation about recommended approaches to patient care and discrepancies among treatment guidelines. To help bridge this gap and improve patient outcomes, the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research assembled a multistakeholder coalition to develop clinical recommendations for the optimal prevention of secondary fracture among people aged 65 years and older with a hip or vertebral fracture. The coalition developed 13 recommendations (7 primary and 6 secondary) strongly supported by the empirical literature. The coalition recommends increased communication with patients regarding fracture risk, mortality and morbidity outcomes, and fracture risk reduction. Risk assessment (including fall history) should occur at regular intervals with referral to physical and/or occupational therapy as appropriate. Oral, intravenous, and subcutaneous pharmacotherapies are efficacious and can reduce risk offuture fracture. Patients need education, however, about the benefits and risks of both treatment and not receiving treatment. Oral bisphosphonates alendronate and risedronate are first-line options and are generally well tolerated; otherwise, intravenous zoledronic acid and subcutaneous denosumab can be considered. Anabolic agents are expensive but may be beneficial for selected patients at high risk. Optimal duration of pharmacotherapy is unknown but because the riskfor second fractures is highest in the early post-fracture period, prompt treatment is recommended. Adequate dietary or supplemental vitamin D and calcium intake should be assured. Individuals being treated for osteoporosis should be reevaluated for fracture risk routinely, including via patient education about osteoporosis and fractures and monitoring foradverse treatment effects. Patients should be strongly encouraged to avoid tobacco, consume alcohol in moderation at most, and engage in regular exercise and fall prevention strategies. Finally, referral to endocrinologists or other osteoporosis specialists may be warranted for individuals who experience repeated fracture or bone loss and those with complicating comorbidities (eg, hyperparathyroidism, chronic kidney disease). (c) 2019 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.
|
|
| 8. |
- Ferrari, Raffaele, et al.
(author)
-
Frontotemporal dementia and its subtypes: a genome-wide association study.
- 2014
-
In: Lancet Neurology. - 1474-4465. ; 13:7, s. 686-699
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Frontotemporal dementia (FTD) is a complex disorder characterised by a broad range of clinical manifestations, differential pathological signatures, and genetic variability. Mutations in three genes-MAPT, GRN, and C9orf72-have been associated with FTD. We sought to identify novel genetic risk loci associated with the disorder.
|
|
| 9. |
- Bocancea, Diana I., et al.
(author)
-
Determinants of cognitive and brain resilience to tau pathology: a longitudinal analysis
- 2023
-
In: Brain. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 0006-8950 .- 1460-2156. ; 146:9, s. 3719-3734
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Mechanisms of resilience against tau pathology in individuals across the Alzheimer’s disease spectrum are insufficiently understood. Longitudinal data are necessary to reveal which factors relate to preserved cognition (i.e. cognitive resilience) and brain structure (i.e. brain resilience) despite abundant tau pathology, and to clarify whether these associations are cross-sectional or longitudinal. We employed a longitudinal study design to investigate the role of several demographic, biological and brain structural factors in yielding cognitive and brain resilience to tau pathology as measured with PET.In this multicenter study, we included 366 amyloid-β-positive individuals with mild cognitive impairment or Alzheimer’s disease-dementia with baseline [18F]flortaucipir-PET and longitudinal cognitive assessments. A subset (n = 200) additionally underwent longitudinal structural MRI. We used linear mixed-effects models with global cognition and cortical thickness as dependent variables to investigate determinants of cognitive resilience and brain resilience, respectively. Models assessed whether age, sex, years of education, APOE-ε4 status, intracranial volume (and cortical thickness for cognitive resilience models) modified the association of tau pathology with cognitive decline or cortical thinning.We found that the association between higher baseline tau-PET levels (quantified in a temporal meta-region of interest) and rate of cognitive decline (measured with repeated Mini-Mental State Examination) was adversely modified by older age (Stβinteraction = -0.062, P = 0.032), higher education level (Stβinteraction = -0.072, P = 0.011) and higher intracranial volume (Stβinteraction = -0.07, P = 0.016). Younger age, higher education and greater cortical thickness were associated with better cognitive performance at baseline. Greater cortical thickness was furthermore associated with slower cognitive decline independent of tau burden. Higher education also modified the negative impact of tau-PET on cortical thinning, while older age was associated with higher baseline cortical thickness and slower rate of cortical thinning independent of tau. Our analyses revealed no (cross-sectional or longitudinal) associations for sex and APOE-ε4 status on cognition and cortical thickness.In this longitudinal study of clinically impaired individuals with underlying Alzheimer’s disease neuropathological changes, we identified education as the most robust determinant of both cognitive and brain resilience against tau pathology. The observed interaction with tau burden on cognitive decline suggests that education may be protective against cognitive decline and brain atrophy at lower levels of tau pathology, with a potential depletion of resilience resources with advancing pathology. Finally, we did not find major contributions of sex to brain nor cognitive resilience, suggesting that previous links between sex and resilience might be mainly driven by cross-sectional differences.
|
|
| 10. |
- Chastin, Sebastien, et al.
(author)
-
Joint association between accelerometry-measured daily combination of time spent in physical activity, sedentary behaviour and sleep and all-cause mortality : A pooled analysis of six prospective cohorts using compositional analysis
- 2021
-
In: British Journal of Sports Medicine. - : BMJ. - 0306-3674 .- 1473-0480. ; 55:22, s. 1277-1285
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- OBJECTIVE: To examine the joint associations of daily time spent in different intensities of physical activity, sedentary behaviour and sleep with all-cause mortality.METHODS: Federated pooled analysis of six prospective cohorts with device-measured time spent in different intensities of physical activity, sedentary behaviour and sleep following a standardised compositional Cox regression analysis.PARTICIPANTS: 130 239 people from general population samples of adults (average age 54 years) from the UK, USA and Sweden.MAIN OUTCOME: All-cause mortality (follow-up 4.3-14.5 years).RESULTS: Studies using wrist and hip accelerometer provided statistically different results (I2=92.2%, Q-test p<0.001). There was no association between duration of sleep and all-cause mortality, HR=0.96 (95% CI 0.67 to 1.12). The proportion of time spent in moderate to vigorous physical activity was significantly associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality (HR=0.63 (95% CI 0.55 to 0.71) wrist; HR=0.93 (95% CI 0.87 to 0.98) hip). A significant association for the ratio of time spent in light physical activity and sedentary time was only found in hip accelerometer-based studies (HR=0.5, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.62). In studies based on hip accelerometer, the association between moderate to vigorous physical activity and mortality was modified by the balance of time spent in light physical activity and sedentary time.CONCLUSION: This federated analysis shows a joint dose-response association between the daily balance of time spent in physical activity of different intensities and sedentary behaviour with all-cause mortality, while sleep duration does not appear to be significant. The strongest association is with time spent in moderate to vigorous physical activity, but it is modified by the balance of time spent in light physical activity relative to sedentary behaviour.
|
|
