| 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. |
- de Beaufort, Carine E., et al.
(författare)
-
Metabolic outcomes in young children with type 1 diabetes differ between treatment centers : the Hvidoere Study in Young Children 2009
- 2013
-
Ingår i: Pediatric Diabetes. - : Hindawi Limited. - 1399-543X .- 1399-5448. ; 14:6, s. 422-428
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective: To investigate whether center differences in glycemic control are present in prepubertal children <11yr with type 1 diabetes mellitus. Research Design and Methods: This cross-sectional study involved 18 pediatric centers worldwide. All children, <11 y with a diabetes duration 12months were invited to participate. Case Record Forms included information on clinical characteristics, insulin regimens, diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), severe hypoglycemia, language difficulties, and comorbidities. Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) was measured centrally by liquid chromatography (DCCT aligned, range: 4.4-6.3%; IFFC: 25-45mmol/mol). Results: A total of 1133 children participated (mean age: 8.0 +/- 2.1 y; females: 47.5%, mean diabetes duration: 3.8 +/- 2.1 y). HbA1c (overall mean: 8.0 +/- 1.0%; range: 7.3-8.9%) and severe hypoglycemia frequency (mean 21.7 events per 100 patient-years), but not DKA, differed significantly between centers (p<0.001 resp. p=0.179). Language difficulties showed a negative relationship with HbA1c (8.3 +/- 1.2% vs. 8.0 +/- 1.0%; p = 0.036). Frequency of blood glucose monitoring demonstrated a significant but weak association with HbA1c (r=-0.17; p<0.0001). Although significant different HbA1c levels were obtained with diverse insulin regimens (range: 7.3-8.5%; p<0.001), center differences remained after adjusting for insulin regimen (p<0.001). Differences between insulin regimens were no longer significant after adjusting for center effect (p=0.199). Conclusions: Center differences in metabolic outcomes are present in children <11yr, irrespective of diabetes duration, age, or gender. The incidence of severe hypoglycemia is lower than in adolescents despite achieving better glycemic control. Insulin regimens show a significant relationship with HbA1c but do not explain center differences. Each center's effectiveness in using specific treatment strategies remains the key factor for outcome.
|
|
| 5. |
- Ludvigsson, Johnny, et al.
(författare)
-
GAD65 antigen therapy in recently diagnosed type 1 diabetes mellitus
- 2012
-
Ingår i: New England Journal of Medicine. - : Massachusetts Medical Society. - 0028-4793 .- 1533-4406. ; 366:5, s. 433-442
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: The 65-kD isoform of glutamic acid decarboxylase (GAD65) is a major autoantigen in type 1 diabetes. We hypothesized that alum-formulated GAD65 (GAD-alum) can preserve beta-cell function in patients with recent-onset type 1 diabetes.METHODS: We studied 334 patients, 10 to 20 years of age, with type 1 diabetes, fasting C-peptide levels of more than 0.3 ng per milliliter (0.1 nmol per liter), and detectable serum GAD65 autoantibodies. Within 3 months after diagnosis, patients were randomly assigned to receive one of three study treatments: four doses of GAD-alum, two doses of GAD-alum followed by two doses of placebo, or four doses of placebo. The primary outcome was the change in the stimulated serum C-peptide level (after a mixed-meal tolerance test) between the baseline visit and the 15-month visit. Secondary outcomes included the glycated hemoglobin level, mean daily insulin dose, rate of hypoglycemia, and fasting and maximum stimulated C-peptide levels.RESULTS: The stimulated C-peptide level declined to a similar degree in all study groups, and the primary outcome at 15 months did not differ significantly between the combined active-drug groups and the placebo group (P=0.10). The use of GAD-alum as compared with placebo did not affect the insulin dose, glycated hemoglobin level, or hypoglycemia rate. Adverse events were infrequent and mild in the three groups, with no significant differences.CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with GAD-alum did not significantly reduce the loss of stimulated C peptide or improve clinical outcomes over a 15-month period.
|
|
