| 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. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Bolkan, Håkon A, et al.
(författare)
-
The Surgical Workforce and Surgical Provider Productivity in Sierra Leone: A Countrywide Inventory.
- 2016
-
Ingår i: World Journal of Surgery. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1432-2323 .- 0364-2313. ; 40:6, s. 1344-1351
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Limited data exist on surgical providers and their scope of practice in low-income countries (LICs). The aim of this study was to assess the distribution and productivity of all surgical providers in an LIC, and to evaluate correlations between the surgical workforce availability, productivity, rates, and volume of surgery at the district and hospital levels.
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
- Edqvist, Per-Henrik D., et al.
(författare)
-
Loss of ASRGL1 expression is an independent biomarker for disease-specific survival in endometrioid endometrial carcinoma
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Gynecologic Oncology. - : Elsevier BV. - 0090-8258 .- 1095-6859. ; 137:3, s. 529-537
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective For endometrial carcinoma, prognostic stratification methods do not satisfactorily identify patients with adverse outcome. Currently, histology, tumor grade and stage are used to tailoring surgical treatment and to determine the need for adjuvant treatment. Low-risk patients are not considered to require adjuvant therapy or staging lymphadenectomy. For patients with intermediate or high risk, some guidelines recommend tailoring adjuvant treatment according to additional negative prognostic factors. Our objective was to evaluate the biomarker potential of the ASRGL1 protein in endometrial carcinoma. Methods Using The Human Protein Atlas (www.proteinatlas.org), the l-asparaginase (ASRGL1) protein was identified as an endometrial carcinoma biomarker candidate. ASRGL1 expression was immunohistochemically evaluated with an extensively validated antibody on two independent endometrial carcinoma cohorts (n = 229 and n = 286) arranged as tissue microarrays. Staining results were correlated with clinical features. Results Reduced expression of ASRGL1, defined as < 75% positively stained tumor cells, was significantly associated with poor prognosis and reduced disease-specific survival in endometrioid endometrial adenocarcinoma (EEA). In multivariate analysis the hazard ratios for disease-specific survival were 3.55 (95% CI = 1.10-11.43; p = 0.003) and 3.23 (95% CI = 1.53-6.81; p = 0.002) in the two cohorts, respectively. Of the 48 cases with Grade 3 Stage I tumor all disease-related deaths were associated with low ASRGL1 expression. Conclusions Loss of ASRGL1 in EEA is a powerful biomarker for poor prognosis and retained ASRGL1 has a positive impact on survival. ASRGL1 immunohistochemistry has potential to become an additional tool for prognostication in cases where tailoring adjuvant treatment according to additional prognostic factors besides grade and stage is recommended.
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
- Løvvik, Tone S., et al.
(författare)
-
Use of metformin to treat pregnant women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PregMet2) : a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial
- 2019
-
Ingår i: The Lancet Diabetes and Endocrinology. - : Elsevier. - 2213-8587 .- 2213-8595. ; 7:4, s. 256-266
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) have an increased risk of pregnancy complications. Epi-analysis of two previous randomised controlled trials that compared metformin with placebo during pregnancy in women with PCOS showed a significant reduction in late miscarriages and preterm births in the metformin group. The aim of this third randomised trial (PregMet2) was to test the hypothesis that metformin prevents late miscarriage and preterm birth in women with PCOS.Methods: PregMet2 was a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, multicentre trial done at 14 hospitals in Norway, Sweden, and Iceland. Singleton pregnant women with PCOS aged 18-45 years were eligible for inclusion. After receiving information about the study at their first antenatal visit or from the internet, women signed up individually to participate in the study. Participants were randomly assigned (1: 1) to receive metformin or placebo by computer-generated random numbers. Randomisation was in blocks of ten for each country and centre; the first block had a random size between one and ten to assure masking. Participants were assigned to receive oral metformin 500 mg twice daily or placebo during the first week of treatment, which increased to 1000 mg twice daily or placebo from week 2 until delivery. Placebo tablets and metformin tablets were identical and participants and study personnel were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was the composite incidence of late miscarriage (between week 13 and week 22 and 6 days) and preterm birth (between week 23 and week 36 and 6 days), analysed in the intention-to-treat population. Secondary endpoints included the incidence of gestational diabetes, preeclampsia, pregnancy-induced hypertension, and admission of the neonate to the neonatal intensive care unit. We also did a post-hoc individual participant data analysis of pregnancy outcomes, pooling data from the two previous trials with the present study. The study was registered with ClinicalTrials. gov, number NCT01587378, and EudraCT, number 2011-002203-15.Findings: The study took place between Oct 19, 2012, and Sept 1, 2017. We randomly assigned 487 women to metformin (n=244) or placebo (n=243). In the intention-to-treat analysis, our composite primary outcome of late miscarriage and preterm birth occurred in 12 (5%) of 238 women in the metformin group and 23 (10%) of 240 women in the placebo group (odds ratio [OR] 0.50, 95% CI 0.22- 1.08; p = 0.08). We found no significant differences for our secondary endpoints, including incidence of gestational diabetes (60 [25%] of 238 women in the metformin group vs 57 [24%] of 240 women in the placebo group; OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.69-1.66; p=0.75). We noted no substantial between-group differences in serious adverse events in either mothers or offspring, and no serious adverse events were considered drug-related by principal investigators. In the post-hoc pooled analysis of individual participant data from the present trial and two previous trials, 18 (5%) of 397 women had late miscarriage or preterm delivery in the metformin group ]compared with 40 (10%) of 399 women in the placebo group (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.23-0.79; p=0.004).Interpretation: In pregnant women with PCOS, metformin treatment from the late first trimester until delivery might reduce the risk of late miscarriage and preterm birth, but does not prevent gestational diabetes.
|
|
