| 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. |
- Veith, Frank J., et al.
(författare)
-
Collected world and single center experience with endovascular treatment of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms
- 2009
-
Ingår i: Annals of Surgery. - 0003-4932 .- 1528-1140. ; 250:5, s. 818-824
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Case and single center reports have documented the feasibility and suggested the effectiveness of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (RAAAs), but the role and value of such treatment remain controversial. OBJECTIVE: To clarify these we examined a collected experience with use of EVAR for RAAA treatment from 49 centers. METHODS: Data were obtained by questionnaires from these centers, updated from 13 centers committed to EVAR treatment whenever possible and included treatment details from a single center and information on 1037 patients treated by EVAR and 763 patients treated by open repair (OR). RESULTS: Overall 30-day mortality after EVAR in 1037 patients was 21.2%. Centers performing EVAR for RAAAs whenever possible did so in 28% to 79% (mean 49.1%) of their patients, had a 30-day mortality of 19.7% (range: 0%-32%) for 680 EVAR patients and 36.3% (range: 8%-53%) for 763 OR patients (P < 0.0001). Supraceliac aortic balloon control was obtained in 19.1% +/- 12.0% (+/-SD) of 680 EVAR patients. Abdominal compartment syndrome was treated by some form of decompression in 12.2% +/- 8.3% (+/-SD) of these EVAR patients. CONCLUSION: These results indicate that EVAR has a lower procedural mortality at 30 days than OR in at least some patients and that EVAR is better than OR for treating RAAA patients provided they have favorable anatomy; adequate skills, facilities, and protocols are available; and optimal strategies, techniques, and adjuncts are employed.
|
|
