| 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. |
- Hsiung, Shih-Yi, et al.
(författare)
-
Structures of the xyloglucans in the monocotyledon family Araceae (aroids)
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Planta. - : Springer Nature. - 0032-0935 .- 1432-2048. ; 257:2
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The aquatic Araceae species Lemna minor was earlier shown to have xyloglucans with a different structure from the fucogalactoxyloglucans of other non-commelinid monocotyledons. We investigated 26 Araceae species (including L. minor), from five of the seven subfamilies. All seven aquatic species examined had xyloglucans that were unusual in having one or two of three features: < 77% XXXG core motif [L. minor (Lemnoideae) and Orontium aquaticum (Orontioideae)]; no fucosylation [L. minor (Lemnoideae), Cryptocoryne aponogetonifolia, and Lagenandra ovata (Aroideae, Rheophytes clade)]; and > 14% oligosaccharide units with S or D side chains [Spirodela polyrhiza and Landoltia punctata (Lemnoideae) and Pistia stratiotes (Aroideae, Dracunculus clade)]. Orontioideae and Lemnoideae are the two most basal subfamilies, with all species being aquatic, and Aroideae is the most derived. Two terrestrial species [Dieffenbachia seguine and Spathicarpa hastifolia (Aroideae, Zantedeschia clade)] also had xyloglucans without fucose indicating this feature was not unique to aquatic species.
|
|
| 4. |
- Schreurs, Guido, et al.
(författare)
-
Benchmarking analogue models of brittle thrust wedges
- 2016
-
Ingår i: Journal of Structural Geology. - : Elsevier BV. - 0191-8141 .- 1873-1201. ; 92, s. 116-139
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- We performed a quantitative comparison of brittle thrust wedge experiments to evaluate the variability among analogue models and to appraise the reproducibility and limits of model interpretation. Fifteen analogue modeling laboratories participated in this benchmark initiative. Each laboratory received a shipment of the same type of quartz and corundum sand and all laboratories adhered to a stringent model building protocol and used the same type of foil to cover base and sidewalls of the sandbox. Sieve structure, sifting height, filling rate, and details on off-scraping of excess sand followed prescribed procedures. Our analogue benchmark shows that even for simple plane-strain experiments with prescribed stringent model construction techniques, quantitative model results show variability, most notably for surface slope, thrust spacing and number of forward and backthrusts. One of the sources of the variability in model results is related to slight variations in how sand is deposited in the sandbox. Small changes in sifting height, sifting rate, and scraping will result in slightly heterogeneous material bulk densities, which will affect the mechanical properties of the sand, and will result in lateral and vertical differences in peak and boundary friction angles, as well as cohesion values once the model is constructed. Initial variations in basal friction are inferred to play the most important role in causing model variability. Our comparison shows that the human factor plays a decisive role, and even when one modeler repeats the same experiment, quantitative model results still show variability. Our observations highlight the limits of up-scaling quantitative analogue model results to nature or for making comparisons with numerical models. The frictional behavior of sand is highly sensitive to small variations in material state or experimental set-up, and hence, it will remain difficult to scale quantitative results such as number of thrusts, thrust spacing, and pop-up width from model to nature.
|
|
