| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- 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.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
- Cardoso, G., et al.
(författare)
-
Microgrid reliability modeling and battery scheduling using stochastic linear programming
- 2013
-
Ingår i: Electric power systems research. - : Elsevier BV. - 0378-7796 .- 1873-2046. ; 103, s. 61-69
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This paper describes the introduction of stochastic linear programming into Operations DER-CAM, a tool used to obtain optimal operating schedules for a given microgrid under local economic and environmental conditions. This application follows previous work on optimal scheduling of a lithium-iron-phosphate battery given the output uncertainty of a 1 MW molten carbonate fuel cell. Both are in the Santa Rita Jail microgrid, located in Dublin, California. This fuel cell has proven unreliable, partially justifying the consideration of storage options. Several stochastic DER-CAM runs are executed to compare different scenarios to values obtained by a deterministic approach. Results indicate that using a stochastic approach provides a conservative yet more lucrative battery schedule. Lower expected energy bills result, given fuel cell outages, in potential savings exceeding 6%.
|
|
| 9. |
- Eiermann, W, et al.
(författare)
-
Triple negative breast cancer: Proposals for a pragmatic definition and implications for patient management and trial design.
- 2012
-
Ingår i: Breast. - : Elsevier BV. - 1532-3080. ; 21:1, s. 20-6
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- In trials in triple negative breast cancer (TNBC), oestrogen and progesterone receptor negativity should be defined as<1% positive cells. Negativity is a ratio of <2 between Her2 gene copy number and centromere of chromosome 17 or a copy number of 4 or less. In routine practice, immunohistochemistry is acceptable given stringent quality assurance. Triple negativity emerging after neoadjuvant treatment differs from primary TN and such patients should not enter TNBC trials. Patients relapsing with TN metastases should be eligible even if their primary was positive. Rare TN subtypes such as apocrine, adenoid-cystic and low-grade metaplastic tumours should be excluded. TN and basal-like (BL) signatures overlap but are not equivalent. Since the significance of basal cytokeratin or EGFR overexpression is not known and we lack validated assays, these features should not be used to subclassify TN tumours. Tissue collection in trials is mandatory so the effect on outcome of different tumour phenotypes and BRCA mutation can be explored. No prospective studies have established that TN tumours have particular sensitivity or resistance to any specific chemotherapy agent or radiation. TNBC patients should be treated according to tumour and clinical characteristics.
|
|
