| 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. |
- Chen, Wei-Min, et al.
(författare)
-
Variations in the G6PC2/ABCB11 genomic region are associated with fasting glucose levels.
- 2008
-
Ingår i: Journal of Clinical Investigation. - 0021-9738. ; Jun 2, s. 2620-2628
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Identifying the genetic variants that regulate fasting glucose concentrations may further our understanding of the pathogenesis of diabetes. We therefore investigated the association of fasting glucose levels with SNPs in 2 genome-wide scans including a total of 5,088 nondiabetic individuals from Finland and Sardinia. We found a significant association between the SNP rs563694 and fasting glucose concentrations (P = 3.5 x 10(-7)). This association was further investigated in an additional 18,436 nondiabetic individuals of mixed European descent from 7 different studies. The combined P value for association in these follow-up samples was 6.9 x 10(-26), and combining results from all studies resulted in an overall P value for association of 6.4 x 10(-33). Across these studies, fasting glucose concentrations increased 0.01-0.16 mM with each copy of the major allele, accounting for approximately 1% of the total variation in fasting glucose. The rs563694 SNP is located between the genes glucose-6-phosphatase catalytic subunit 2 (G6PC2) and ATP-binding cassette, subfamily B (MDR/TAP), member 11 (ABCB11). Our results in combination with data reported in the literature suggest that G6PC2, a glucose-6-phosphatase almost exclusively expressed in pancreatic islet cells, may underlie variation in fasting glucose, though it is possible that ABCB11, which is expressed primarily in liver, may also contribute to such variation.
|
|
| 4. |
- Spada, Cristiano, et al.
(författare)
-
Second-generation colon capsule endoscopy compared with colonoscopy
- 2011
-
Ingår i: Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. - : Elsevier BV. - 1097-6779 .- 0016-5107. ; 74:3, s. 581-589
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) represents a noninvasive technology that allows visualization of the colon without requiring sedation and air insufflation. A second-generation colon capsule endoscopy system (PillCam Colon 2) (CCE-2) was developed to increase sensitivity for colorectal polyp detection compared with the first-generation system. Objective: To assess the feasibility, accuracy, and safety of CCE-2 in a head-to-head comparison with colonoscopy. Design and Setting: Prospective, multicenter trial including 8 European sites. Patients: This study involved 117 patients (mean age 60 years). Data from 109 patients were analyzed. Intervention: CCE-2 was prospectively compared with conventional colonoscopy as the criterion standard for the detection of colorectal polyps that are >= 6 mm or masses in a cohort of patients at average or increased risk of colorectal neoplasia. Colonoscopy was independently performed within 10 hours after capsule ingestion or on the next day. Main Outcome Measurements: CCE-2 sensitivity and specificity for detecting patients with polyps >= 6 mm and >= 10 mm were assessed. Capsule-positive but colonoscopy-negative cases were counted as false positive. Capsule excretion rate, level of bowel preparation, and rate of adverse events also were assessed. Results: Per-patient CCE-2 sensitivity for polyps >= 6 mm and >= 10 mm was 84% and 88%, with specificities of 64% and 95%, respectively. All 3 invasive carcinomas were detected by CCE-2. The capsule excretion rate was 88% within 10 hours. Overall colon cleanliness for CCE-2 was adequate in 81% of patients. Limitations: Not unblinding the CCE-2 results at colonoscopy; heterogenous patient population; nonconsecutive patients. Conclusion: In this European, multicenter study, CCE-2 appeared to have a high sensitivity for the detection of clinically relevant polypoicl lesions, and it might be considered an adequate tool for colorectal imaging. (Gastrointest Enclose 201174:581-9.)
|
|
