| 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. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Biollaz, S., et al.
(författare)
-
Gas analysis in gasification of biomass and waste : Guideline report: Document 1
- 2018
-
Rapport (refereegranskat)abstract
- Gasification is generally acknowledged as one of the technologies that will enable the large-scale production of biofuels and chemicals from biomass and waste. One of the main technical challenges associated to the deployment of biomass gasification as a commercial technology is the cleaning and upgrading of the product gas. The contaminants of product gas from biomass/waste gasification include dust, tars, alkali metals, BTX, sulphur-, nitrogen- and chlorine compounds, and heavy metals. Proper measurement of the components and contaminants of the product gas is essential for the monitoring of gasification-based plants (efficiency, product quality, by-products), as well as for the proper design of the downstream gas cleaning train (for example, scrubbers, sorbents, etc.). In practice, a trade-off between reliability, accuracy and cost has to be reached when selecting the proper analysis technique for a specific application. The deployment and implementation of inexpensive yet accurate gas analysis techniques to monitor the fate of gas contaminants might play an important role in the commercialization of biomass and waste gasification processes.This special report commissioned by the IEA Bioenergy Task 33 group compiles a representative part of the extensive work developed in the last years by relevant actors in the field of gas analysis applied to(biomass and waste) gasification. The approach of this report has been based on the creation of a team of contributing partners who have supplied material to the report. This networking approach has been complemented with a literature review. The report is composed of a set of 2 documents. Document 1(the present report) describes the available analysis techniques (both commercial and underdevelopment) for the measurement of different compounds of interest present in gasification gas. The objective is to help the reader to properly select the analysis technique most suitable to the target compounds and the intended application. Document 1 also describes some examples of application of gas analysis at commercial-, pilot- and research gasification plants, as well as examples of recent and current joint research activities in the field. The information contained in Document 1 is complemented with a book of factsheets on gas analysis techniques in Document 2, and a collection of video blogs which illustrate some of the analysis techniques described in Documents 1 and 2.This guideline report would like to become a platform for the reinforcement of the network of partners working on the development and application of gas analysis, thus fostering collaboration and exchange of knowledge. As such, this report should become a living document which incorporates in future coming progress and developments in the field.
|
|
| 5. |
- Biollaz, S., et al.
(författare)
-
Gas analysis in gasification of biomass and waste : Guideline report: Document 2 - Factsheets on gas analysis techniques
- 2018
-
Rapport (refereegranskat)abstract
- Gasification is generally acknowledged as one of the technologies that will enable the large-scale production of biofuels and chemicals from biomass and waste. One of the main technical challenges associated to the deployment of biomass gasification as a commercial technology is the cleaning and upgrading of the product gas. The contaminants of product gas from biomass/waste gasification include dust, tars, alkali metals, BTX, sulphur-, nitrogen- and chlorine compounds, and heavy metals. Proper measurement of the components and contaminants of the product gas is essential for the monitoring of gasification-based plants (efficiency, product quality, by-products), as well as for the proper design of the downstream gas cleaning train (for example, scrubbers, sorbents, etc.). The deployment and implementation of inexpensive yet accurate gas analysis techniques to monitor the fate of gas contaminants might play an important role in the commercialization of biomass and waste gasification processes.This special report commissioned by the IEA Bioenergy Task 33 group compiles a representative part of the extensive work developed in the last years by relevant actors in the field of gas analysis applied to (biomass and waste) gasification. The approach of this report has been based on the creation of a team of contributing partners who have supplied material to the report. This networking approach has been complemented with a literature review. This guideline report would like to become a platform for the reinforcement of the network of partners working on the development and application of gas analysis, thus fostering collaboration and exchange of knowledge. As such, this report should become a living document which incorporates in future coming progress and developments in the field.
|
|
| 6. |
- Brandsma, Rick, et al.
(författare)
-
Diagnostic approach to paediatric movement disorders : a clinical practice guide
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology. - : Wiley. - 0012-1622 .- 1469-8749. ; 63:3, s. 252-258
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Paediatric movement disorders (PMDs) comprise a large group of disorders (tics, myoclonus, tremor, dystonia, chorea, Parkinsonism, ataxia), often with mixed phenotypes. Determination of the underlying aetiology can be difficult given the broad differential diagnosis and the complexity of the genotype–phenotype relationships. This can make the diagnostic process time-consuming and difficult. In this overview, we present a diagnostic approach for PMDs, with emphasis on genetic causes. This approach can serve as a framework to lead the clinician through the diagnostic process in eight consecutive steps, including recognition of the different movement disorders, identification of a clinical syndrome, consideration of acquired causes, genetic testing including next-generation sequencing, post-sequencing phenotyping, and interpretation of test results. The aim of this approach is to increase the recognition and diagnostic yield in PMDs. What this paper adds: An up-to-date description and diagnostic framework for testing of paediatric movement disorders is presented. The framework helps to determine which patients will benefit from next-generation sequencing.
|
|
| 7. |
- Carneiro, Clarissa F. D., et al.
(författare)
-
Comparing quality of reporting between preprints and peer-reviewed articles in the biomedical literature
- 2020
-
Ingår i: RESEARCH INTEGRITY AND PEER REVIEW. - : BMC. - 2058-8615. ; 5:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background Preprint usage is growing rapidly in the life sciences; however, questions remain on the relative quality of preprints when compared to published articles. An objective dimension of quality that is readily measurable is completeness of reporting, as transparency can improve the reader's ability to independently interpret data and reproduce findings. Methods In this observational study, we initially compared independent samples of articles published in bioRxiv and in PubMed-indexed journals in 2016 using a quality of reporting questionnaire. After that, we performed paired comparisons between preprints from bioRxiv to their own peer-reviewed versions in journals. Results Peer-reviewed articles had, on average, higher quality of reporting than preprints, although the difference was small, with absolute differences of 5.0% [95% CI 1.4, 8.6] and 4.7% [95% CI 2.4, 7.0] of reported items in the independent samples and paired sample comparison, respectively. There were larger differences favoring peer-reviewed articles in subjective ratings of how clearly titles and abstracts presented the main findings and how easy it was to locate relevant reporting information. Changes in reporting from preprints to peer-reviewed versions did not correlate with the impact factor of the publication venue or with the time lag from bioRxiv to journal publication. Conclusions Our results suggest that, on average, publication in a peer-reviewed journal is associated with improvement in quality of reporting. They also show that quality of reporting in preprints in the life sciences is within a similar range as that of peer-reviewed articles, albeit slightly lower on average, supporting the idea that preprints should be considered valid scientific contributions.
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
