| 2. |
- Klionsky, Daniel J., et al.
(author)
-
Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy
- 2012
-
In: Autophagy. - : Informa UK Limited. - 1554-8635 .- 1554-8627. ; 8:4, s. 445-544
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)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. |
- Luquiens, Amandine, et al.
(author)
-
Pictograms to aid laypeople in identifying the addictiveness of gambling products (PictoGRRed study)
- 2022
-
In: Scientific Reports. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 2045-2322. ; 12:1
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The structural addictive characteristics of gambling products are important targets for prevention, but can be unintuitive to laypeople. In the PictoGRRed (Pictograms for Gambling Risk Reduction) study, we aimed to develop pictograms that illustrate the main addictive characteristics of gambling products and to assess their impact on identifying the addictiveness of gambling products by laypeople. We conducted a three-step study: (1) use of a Delphi consensus method among 56 experts from 13 countries to reach a consensus on the 10 structural addictive characteristics of gambling products to be illustrated by pictograms and their associated definitions, (2) development of 10 pictograms and their definitions, and (3) study in the general population to assess the impact of exposure to the pictograms and their definitions (n = 900). French-speaking experts from the panel assessed the addictiveness of gambling products (n = 25), in which the mean of expert’s ratings was considered as the true value. Participants were randomly provided with the pictograms and their definitions, or with a standard slogan, or with neither (control group). We considered the control group as representing the baseline ability of laypeople to assess the addictiveness of gambling products. Each group and the French-speaking experts rated the addictiveness of 14 gambling products. The judgment criterion was the intraclass coefficients (ICCs) between the mean ratings of each group and the experts, reflecting the level of agreement between each group and the experts. Exposure to the pictograms and their definition doubled the ability of laypeople to assess the addictiveness of gambling products compared with that of the group that read a slogan or the control group (ICC = 0.28 vs. 0.14 (Slogan) and 0.14 (Control)). Laypeople have limited awareness of the addictive characteristics of gambling products. The pictograms developed herein represent an innovative tool for universally empowering prevention and for selective prevention.
|
|
