| 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. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- Caspers, I. A., et al.
(författare)
-
Effect of preoperative chemotherapy on the histopathological classification of gastric cancer
- 2024
-
Ingår i: Gastric Cancer. - : Springer. - 1436-3291 .- 1436-3305. ; 27, s. 102-109
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: In the era of individualized gastric cancer (GC) treatment, accurate determination of histological subtype becomes increasingly relevant. As yet, it is unclear whether preoperative chemotherapy may affect the histological subtype. The aim of this study was to assess concordance in histological subtype between pretreatment biopsies and surgical resection specimens before and after the introduction of perioperative treatment.Methods: Histological subtype was centrally determined in paired GC biopsies and surgical resection specimens of patients treated with either surgery alone (SA) in the Dutch D1/D2 study or with preoperative chemotherapy (CT) in the CRITICS trial. The histological subtype as determined in the resection specimen was considered the gold standard. Concordance rates and sensitivity and specificity of intestinal, diffuse, mixed, and "other" subtypes of GC were analyzed.Results: In total, 105 and 515 pairs of GC biopsies and resection specimens of patients treated in the SA and CT cohorts, respectively, were included. Overall concordance in the histological subtype was 72% in the SA and 74% in the CT cohort and substantially higher in the diffuse subtype (83% and 86%) compared to the intestinal (70% and 74%), mixed (21% and 33%) and "other" subtypes (54% and 54%). In the SA cohort, sensitivities and specificities were 0.88 and 0.71 in the intestinal, 0.67 and 0.93 in the diffuse, 0.20 and 0.98 in the mixed, and 0.50 and 0.93 in the "other" subtypes, respectively.Conclusion: Our results suggest that accurate determination of histological subtype on gastric cancer biopsies is suboptimal but that the impact of preoperative chemotherapy on histological subtype is negligible.
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
