| 1. |
|
|
| 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. |
- López-Isac, Elena, et al.
(author)
-
Brief Report : IRF4 Newly Identified as a Common Susceptibility Locus for Systemic Sclerosis and Rheumatoid Arthritis in a Cross-Disease Meta-Analysis of Genome-Wide Association Studies
- 2016
-
In: Arthritis & Rheumatology. - : Wiley. - 2326-5191 .- 2326-5205. ; 68:9, s. 2338-2344
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Objective: Systemic sclerosis (SSc) and rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are autoimmune diseases that have similar clinical and immunologic characteristics. To date, several shared SSc–RA genetic loci have been identified independently. The aim of the current study was to systematically search for new common SSc–RA loci through an interdisease meta–genome-wide association (meta-GWAS) strategy. Methods: The study was designed as a meta-analysis combining GWAS data sets of patients with SSc and patients with RA, using a strategy that allowed identification of loci with both same-direction and opposite-direction allelic effects. The top single-nucleotide polymorphisms were followed up in independent SSc and RA case–control cohorts. This allowed an increase in the sample size to a total of 8,830 patients with SSc, 16,870 patients with RA, and 43,393 healthy controls. Results: This cross-disease meta-analysis of the GWAS data sets identified several loci with nominal association signals (P < 5 × 10−6) that also showed evidence of association in the disease-specific GWAS scans. These loci included several genomic regions not previously reported as shared loci, as well as several risk factors that were previously found to be associated with both diseases. Follow-up analyses of the putatively new SSc–RA loci identified IRF4 as a shared risk factor for these 2 diseases (Pcombined = 3.29 × 10−12). Analysis of the biologic relevance of the known SSc–RA shared loci identified the type I interferon and interleukin-12 signaling pathways as the main common etiologic factors. Conclusion: This study identified a novel shared locus, IRF4, for the risk of SSc and RA, and highlighted the usefulness of a cross-disease GWAS meta-analysis strategy in the identification of common risk loci.
|
|
| 4. |
- Bossini-Castillo, Lara, et al.
(author)
-
A replication study confirms the association of TNFSF4 (OX40L) polymorphisms with systemic sclerosis in a large European cohort
- 2011
-
In: Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. - : BMJ. - 1468-2060 .- 0003-4967. ; 70:4, s. 638-641
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Objectives The aim of this study was to confirm the influence of TNFSF4 polymorphisms on systemic sclerosis (SSc) susceptibility and phenotypic features. Methods A total of 8 European populations of Caucasian ancestry were included, comprising 3014 patients with SSc and 3125 healthy controls. Four genetic variants of TNFSF4 gene promoter (rs1234314, rs844644, rs844648 and rs12039904) were selected as genetic markers. Results A pooled analysis revealed the association of rs1234314 and rs12039904 polymorphisms with SSc (OR 1.15, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.31; OR 1.18, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.29, respectively). Significant association of the four tested variants with patients with limited cutaneous SSc (lcSSc) was revealed (rs1234314 OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.38; rs844644 OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.99; rs844648 OR 1.10, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.20 and rs12039904 OR 1.20, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.33). Association of rs1234314, rs844648 and rs12039904 minor alleles with patients positive for anti-centromere antibodies (ACA) remained significant (OR 1.23, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.37; OR 1.12, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.25; OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.38, respectively). Haplotype analysis confirmed a protective haplotype associated with SSc, lcSSc and ACA positive subgroups (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.96; OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.96; OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.97, respectively) and revealed a new risk haplotype associated with the same groups of patients (OR 1.14, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.26; OR 1.20, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.35; OR 1.23, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.42, respectively). Conclusions The data confirm the influence of TNFSF4 polymorphisms in SSc genetic susceptibility, especially in subsets of patients positive for lcSSc and ACA.
|
|
| 5. |
- Leeksma, Alexander C., et al.
(author)
-
Genomic arrays identify high-risk chronic lymphocytic leukemia with genomic complexity : A multi-center study
- 2020
-
In: Haematologica. - 0390-6078. ; 105:5
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Complex karyotype (CK) identified by chromosome-banding analysis (CBA) has shown prognostic value in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Genomic arrays offer high-resolution genome-wide detection of copy-number alterations (CNAs) and could therefore be well equipped to detect the presence of a CK. Current knowledge on genomic arrays in CLL is based on outcomes of single center studies, in which different cutoffs for CNA calling were used. To further determine the clinical utility of genomic arrays for CNA assessment in CLL diagnostics, we retrospectively analyzed 2293 arrays from 13 diagnostic laboratories according to established standards. CNAs were found outside regions captured by CLL FISH probes in 34% of patients, and several of them including gains of 8q, deletions of 9p and 18p (p<0.01) were linked to poor outcome after correction for multiple testing. Patients (n=972) could be divided in three distinct prognostic subgroups based on the number of CNAs. Only high genomic complexity (high-GC), defined as 5 CNAs emerged as an independent adverse prognosticator on multivariable analysis for time to first treatment (Hazard ratio: 2.15, 95% CI: 1.36-3.41; p=0.001) and overall survival (Hazard ratio: 2.54, 95% CI: 1.54-4.17; p<0.001; n=528). Lowering the size cutoff to 1 Mb in 647 patients did not significantly improve risk assessment. Genomic arrays detected more chromosomal abnormalities and performed at least as well in terms of risk stratification compared to simultaneous chromosome banding analysis as determined in 122 patients. Our findings highlight genomic array as an accurate tool for CLL risk stratification.
|
|
