| 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. |
- Paramasivam, Abinethaa, et al.
(författare)
-
The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health Core Set for deafblindness. Part I : a systematic review of outcome measures
- 2023
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine. - : Edizioni Minerva Medica. - 1973-9087 .- 1973-9095. ; 59:5, s. 615-627
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- INTRODUCTION: The International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF), developed by the World Health Organization, is a classification framework that focuses on the health and functioning of people with disabilities. As part of an ICF Core Set development, four studies need to be conducted, one of which is a systematic review. This study presents part 1 of the systematic review that aims to describe the outcome measures identified in the literature related to functioning in individuals with deafblindness. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: The research team screened articles from eight scientific databases, three journals, and Google Scholar (March 2011 to September 2022). Articles were included if they studied individuals with deafblindness aged 18 and older. Studies that examined genetics or laboratory experiments involving animals were excluded. Data were extracted into a logbook with key descriptors such as study location and design, age of study population, and instruments/outcome measures used, which were further categorized into one of the following types: 1) standardized; 2) patient-reported measures, standardized (PT-S); 3) patient-reported measures, not standardized (PT-not S); 4) health professional, reported measures, standardized (HP-S); 5) Technical measures; 6) other measures (parent-reported standardized and laboratory measures).EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: The review included 147 studies, of which most were conducted in Europe (47.6%) and North America (27.9%). Of the 314 identified outcome measures, 57 were Standardized, 59 were Patient Reported-Standardized (PT-S), 178 were patient reported non-standardized (PT-Not S) variables, 11 were health professional reported, standardized, five were technical, and four were classified as other measures.CONCLUSIONS: Most instruments measured functioning in daily activities and the mental health of individuals with deafblindness. Three deafblind-specific instruments were identified in this study, highlighting the need for more deafblind-specific instruments to be developed and utilized in research.
|
|
