| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- 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.
|
|
| 3. |
- Solot, Cynthia B, et al.
(författare)
-
Speech-Language Disorders in 22q11.2 Deletion Syndrome: Best Practices for Diagnosis and Management.
- 2019
-
Ingår i: American journal of speech-language pathology. - 1558-9110. ; 28:3, s. 984-999
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Purpose Speech and language disorders are hallmark features of 22q11.2 deletion syndrome (22qDS). Learning disabilities, cognitive deficits, palate abnormalities, velopharyngeal dysfunction, behavioral differences, and various medical and psychiatric conditions are also major features of this syndrome. The goal of this document is to summarize the state of the art of current clinical and scientific knowledge regarding 22qDS for speech-language pathologists (SLPs) and provide recommendations for clinical management. Method Best practices for management of individuals with 22qDS were developed by consensus of an expert international group of SLPs and researchers with expertise in 22qDS. These care recommendations are based on the authors' research, clinical experience, and literature review. Results This document describes the features of 22qDS as well as evaluation procedures, treatment protocols, and associated management recommendations for SLPs for the often complex communication disorders present in this population. Conclusion Early diagnosis and appropriate management of speech-language disorders in 22qDS is essential to optimize outcomes and to minimize the long-term effects of communication impairments. Knowledge of this diagnosis also allows anticipatory care and guidance regarding associated features for families, health care, and educational professionals.
|
|
| 4. |
- Tönnesson, Kajsa, 1971, et al.
(författare)
-
Grazing impact of Oikopleura dioica and copepods on an autumn plankton community
- 2005
-
Ingår i: Marine Biology Research. - : Informa UK Limited. - 1745-1000 .- 1745-1019. ; 1:5, s. 365-373
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Copepods and appendicularians are major grazers in the pelagic environment. They have different retention efficiencies for prey and may therefore exert a variable grazing pressure on the spectrum of pico- to micro-plankton. We determined clearance rates of both groups at one station during 24 h in the Gullmar fjord, west Sweden, in autumn 1999. Total potential prey biomass ranged from 75 mu g C l(-1) at the surface to 14 mu g C l(-1) at 30 m with a dominance of larger dinoflagellates (10-25 mu m athecate species and Gymnodinium /Gyrodinium sp.) and the pennate diatom Pseudo -nitzschia sp. Grazer biomass was dominated by copepods (Acartia clausi, Paracalanus parvus) and appendicularians (Oikopleura dioica). O. dioica showed non-selective clearance rates of 0.7-1.8 ml mu g C-1 h(-1) on most diatoms, flagellates and ciliates, whereas Pseudo -nitzschia sp. and dinoflagellates and ciliates > 25 mu m were not removed by O. dioica. Appendicularian grazing impact was 0.06% d(-1) on the phytoplankton and 0.4% d(-1) on bacterial biomass. Despite a seven-fold higher biomass, the grazing impact of copepods on phytoplankton biomass was only 0.28% d(-1) indicating that O. dioica had a proportionally greater impact and, in contrast to copepods, also utilised bacteria. The low observed grazing impact was due to a low grazer biomass and a prey community largely unavailable to the investigated grazers.
|
|
