| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- 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.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Hellgren, Tina, et al.
(författare)
-
Thoracic endovascular aortic repair practice in 13 countries : A report from VASCUNET and the International Consortium of Vascular Registries
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Annals of Surgery. - : Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. - 0003-4932 .- 1528-1140. ; 276:5, s. e598-e604
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVE: To assess practice patterns and short-term outcome after TEVAR, based on an international vascular registry collaboration.SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has become the primary surgical treatment modality for descending aortic pathologies, and has expanded to new patient cohorts, including the elderly.METHODS: Data on thoracic aortic aneurysms (TAA), type B aortic dissections (TBAD), and traumatic aortic injuries (TAI) treated with TEVAR from 2012 to 2016 were retrieved from registries and centers in 13 countries.RESULTS: 9518 TEVAR for TAA (n = 4436), TBAD (n = 3976) and TAI (n = 1106) were included. The distribution of TEVAR procedures per pathology varied, with TAA repair constituting from 40% of TEVARs in the US to 72% in the UK (p < 0.001).Mean intact TAA (iTAA) diameter varied from 59 (US) to 69 mm (Nancy, France) (p < 0.001), 25.3% of patients having a diameter of < 60 mm. Perioperative mortality after iTAA repair was 4.9%; combined mortality, stroke, paraplegia and RRT outcome was 12.8%. 18.6% of iTAA patients were ≥80 years old. Mortality was higher in this group (7.2%) than in patients < 80 (3.8%) (p < 0.001). After rTAA repair, perioperative mortality was 26.8%.Mortality was 9.7% after acute (within 14 days from onset of dissection) and 3.0% after chronic TBAD repair (p < 0.001). Mortality after TAI was 7.8%, and depended on injury severity (grade IV (free rupture) 20.9%).CONCLUSIONS:: This registry collaboration provides a unique platform to evaluate cross-border patterns of use and outcomes of TEVAR. A common core dataset is proposed, to achieve harmonization of registry-based quality outcome measures for TEVAR.
|
|
