| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Beal, Jacob, et al.
(författare)
-
Robust estimation of bacterial cell count from optical density
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Communications Biology. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 2399-3642. ; 3:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Optical density (OD) is widely used to estimate the density of cells in liquid culture, but cannot be compared between instruments without a standardized calibration protocol and is challenging to relate to actual cell count. We address this with an interlaboratory study comparing three simple, low-cost, and highly accessible OD calibration protocols across 244 laboratories, applied to eight strains of constitutive GFP-expressing E. coli. Based on our results, we recommend calibrating OD to estimated cell count using serial dilution of silica microspheres, which produces highly precise calibration (95.5% of residuals <1.2-fold), is easily assessed for quality control, also assesses instrument effective linear range, and can be combined with fluorescence calibration to obtain units of Molecules of Equivalent Fluorescein (MEFL) per cell, allowing direct comparison and data fusion with flow cytometry measurements: in our study, fluorescence per cell measurements showed only a 1.07-fold mean difference between plate reader and flow cytometry data.
|
|
| 4. |
- 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.
|
|
| 5. |
- Wang, Daniel, et al.
(författare)
-
Case report : early diagnosis and bevacizumab-based chemotherapy for primary pericardial mesothelioma
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine. - : Frontiers Media S.A.. - 2297-055X. ; 10
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Primary pericardial mesothelioma (PPM) is an exceedingly rare malignant cancer and has a poor prognosis, which has been partly attributed to its frequently delayed diagnosis due to its nonspecific syndromes, its similar presentation to benign pericardial diseases, and its non-definitive etiology. In many PPM cases, the time from presentation to definite diagnosis may last for several months or even over one year. Unlike pleural mesothelioma, the relationship between PPM and asbestos exposure remains unsettled. To date, there is no consensus on the treatment of PPM.Case report: The patient is a 57-year-old male who had nonspecific syndromes and inconclusive image findings. The occupational long-term asbestos exposure history of this patient raised our concerns regarding potential malignancy when confronted with unexplained pericardial effusion accompanied by cardiac tamponade. The heightened suspicion prompted us to perform pericardiocentesis and biopsy on the third day after admission to our department. An early diagnosis of PPM was established by the pathological and immunohistochemical evaluation of the biopsy specimen two weeks after admission. Positron emission tomography-computed tomography revealed that the lesion was localized at the anterior part of the mediastinum without distant metastasis. This patient refused to receive cardiac surgery. He subsequently underwent six cycles of chemotherapy (cisplatin plus pemetrexed) in combination with bevacizumab (a humanized anti-VEGF antibody) as the first-line treatment, resulting in complete relief of symptoms and satisfactory outcomes with no complications. Four months after the first course, the patient initiated a second course of chemotherapy with a similar regimen, but he opted to discontinue the medical treatment after the initiation of the second course. The patient was transferred to the hospice care unit and unfortunately expired one year after the initial presentation.Conclusion: We present a case of an early multidisciplinary clinical approach to diagnose and manage PPM with consideration of occupational asbestos exposure history and clinical symptoms. Bevacizumab-based chemotherapy remains an option for the treatment of PPM.
|
|
