| 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. |
- Klionsky, Daniel J., et al.
(författare)
-
Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy in higher eukaryotes
- 2008
-
Ingår i: Autophagy. - : Landes Bioscience. - 1554-8627 .- 1554-8635. ; 4:2, s. 151-175
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Research in autophagy continues to accelerate,1 and as a result many new scientists are entering the field. Accordingly, it is important to establish a standard set of criteria for monitoring macroautophagy in different organisms. Recent reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose.2,3 There are many useful and convenient methods that can be used to monitor macroautophagy in yeast, but relatively few in other model systems, and there is much confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure macroautophagy in higher eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers of autophagosomes versus those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway; thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from fully functional autophagy that includes delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of the methods that can be used by investigators who are attempting to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as by reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that investigate these processes. This set of guidelines is 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 verify an autophagic response.
|
|
| 3. |
- Cameron-McDermott, Suzette M., et al.
(författare)
-
Antimicrobial susceptibility of Neisseria gonorrhoeae isolates and syndromic treatment of men with urethral discharge in Kingston, Jamaica, 2018-19
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. - : Oxford University Press. - 0305-7453 .- 1460-2091. ; 77:1, s. 218-222
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVES: To quantitatively determine the antimicrobial susceptibility of clinical Neisseria gonorrhoeae isolates from men with urethral discharge in Jamaica and to describe the syndromic treatment therapies administered.METHODS: Urethral eSwabs (Copan) were collected from 175 men presenting with urethral discharge to the Comprehensive Health Centre STI Clinic, Kingston, Jamaica. Clinical information was collected and MICs of eight antimicrobials were determined for N. gonorrhoeae isolates (n = 96) using Etest and interpreted using CLSI criteria.RESULTS: The median age of the subjects was 28 years (range: 18-73 years) with a median of 2 sexual partners (range: 1-25) per male in the previous 3 months. All examined N. gonorrhoeae isolates were susceptible to ceftriaxone (96/96), azithromycin (91/91), cefixime (91/91) and spectinomycin (91/91). For ciprofloxacin and gentamicin, respectively, 98.9% (91/92) and 91.3% (84/92) of the isolates were susceptible and 1.1% (1/92) and 8.7% (8/92) showed intermediate susceptibility/resistance. For tetracycline and benzylpenicillin, respectively, 38.0% (35/92) and 22.0% (20/91) of the isolates were susceptible, 52.2% (48/92) and 74.7% (68/91) showed intermediate susceptibility/resistance and 9.8% (9/92) and 3.3% (3/91) were resistant. Syndromic treatment was administered as follows: 93.1% received 250 mg of ceftriaxone intramuscularly plus 100 mg of doxycycline orally q12h for 1-2 weeks and 6.9% received 500 mg of ciprofloxacin orally plus 100 mg of doxycycline orally q12h for 1 week.CONCLUSIONS: Ceftriaxone (250 mg) remains appropriate for gonorrhoea treatment in the examined population of men in Kingston, Jamaica. Surveillance of N. gonorrhoeae AMR should be expanded in Jamaica and other Caribbean countries to guide evidence-based treatment guidelines.
|
|
