| 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. |
- Teixeira, Pedro J., et al.
(författare)
-
Classification of Techniques Used in Self-Determinationheory-Based Interventions in Health Contexts : An Expert Consensus Study
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Motivation Science. - Washington, DC : American Psychological Association (APA). - 2333-8113 .- 2333-8121. ; 6:4, s. 438-445
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- While evidence suggests that interventions based on self-determination theory can be effective in motivating adoption and maintenance of health-related behaviors, and in promoting adaptive psychological outcomes, the motivational techniques that comprise the content of these interventions have not been comprehensively identified or described. The aim of the present study was to develop a classification system of the techniques that comprise self-determination theory interventions, with satisfaction of psychological needs as an organizing principle. Candidate techniques were identified through a comprehensive review of self-determination theory interventions and nomination by experts. The study team developed a preliminary list of candidate techniques accompanied by labels, definitions, and function descriptions of each. Each technique was aligned with the most closely-related psychological need satisfaction construct (autonomy, competence, or relatedness). Using an iterative expert consensus procedure, participating experts (N = 18) judged each technique on the preliminary list for redundancy, essentiality, uniqueness, and the proposed link between the technique and basic psychological need. The procedure produced a final classification of 21 motivation and behavior change techniques (MBCTs). Redundancies between final MBCTs against techniques from existing behavior change technique taxonomies were also checked. The classification system is the first formal attempt to systematize self-determination theory intervention techniques. The classification is expected to enhance consistency in descriptions of self-determination theory-based interventions in health contexts, and assist in facilitating synthesis of evidence on interventions based on the theory. The classification is also expected to guide future efforts to identify, describe, and classify the techniques that comprise self-determination theory-based interventions in multiple domains. © 2020, American Psychological Association.
|
|
