| 11. |
|
|
| 12. |
- Pulit, S. L., et al.
(författare)
-
Atrial fibrillation genetic risk differentiates cardioembolic stroke from other stroke subtypes
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Neurology-Genetics. - : Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health). - 2376-7839. ; 4:6
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective We sought to assess whether genetic risk factors for atrial fibrillation (AF) can explain cardioembolic stroke risk. We evaluated genetic correlations between a previous genetic study of AF and AF in the presence of cardioembolic stroke using genome-wide genotypes from the Stroke Genetics Network (N = 3,190 AF cases, 3,000 cardioembolic stroke cases, and 28,026 referents). We tested whether a previously validated AF polygenic risk score (PRS) associated with cardioembolic and other stroke subtypes after accounting for AF clinical risk factors. We observed a strong correlation between previously reported genetic risk for AF, AF in the presence of stroke, and cardioembolic stroke (Pearson r = 0.77 and 0.76, respectively, across SNPs with p < 4.4 x 10(-4) in the previous AF meta-analysis). An AF PRS, adjusted for clinical AF risk factors, was associated with cardioembolic stroke (odds ratio [OR] per SD = 1.40, p = 1.45 x 10(-48)), explaining similar to 20% of the heritable component of cardioembolic stroke risk. The AF PRS was also associated with stroke of undetermined cause (OR per SD = 1.07,p = 0.004), but no other primary stroke subtypes (all p > 0.1). Genetic risk of AF is associated with cardioembolic stroke, independent of clinical risk factors. Studies are warranted to determine whether AF genetic risk can serve as a biomarker for strokes caused by AF.
|
|
| 13. |
|
|
| 14. |
|
|
| 15. |
- de Jong, R. S., et al.
(författare)
-
4MOST : Project overview and information for the First Call for Proposals
- 2019
-
Ingår i: The Messenger. - : European Southern Observatory. - 0722-6691. ; 175, s. 3-11
-
Tidskriftsartikel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- We introduce the 4-metre Multi-Object Spectroscopic Telescope (4MOST), a new high-multiplex, wide-field spectroscopic survey facility under development for the four-metre-class Visible and Infrared Survey Telescope for Astronomy (VISTA) at Paranal. Its key specifications are: a large field of view (FoV) of 4.2 square degrees and a high multiplex capability, with 1624 fibres feeding two low-resolution spectrographs (R = λ/Δλ ~ 6500), and 812 fibres transferring light to the high-resolution spectrograph (R ~ 20 000). After a description of the instrument and its expected performance, a short overview is given of its operational scheme and planned 4MOST Consortium science; these aspects are covered in more detail in other articles in this edition of The Messenger. Finally, the processes, schedules, and policies concerning the selection of ESO Community Surveys are presented, commencing with a singular opportunity to submit Letters of Intent for Public Surveys during the first five years of 4MOST operations.
|
|
| 16. |
|
|
| 17. |
|
|
| 18. |
|
|
| 19. |
- 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.
|
|
| 20. |
|
|
