| 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. |
- O'Connor, C. M., et al.
(författare)
-
Effect of nesiritide in patients with acute decompensated heart failure
- 2011
-
Ingår i: The New England journal of medicine. - : Massachusetts Medical Society. - 0028-4793 .- 1533-4406. ; 365:1, s. 32-43
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Nesiritide is approved in the United States for early relief of dyspnea in patients with acute heart failure. Previous meta-analyses have raised questions regarding renal toxicity and the mortality associated with this agent. METHODS: We randomly assigned 7141 patients who were hospitalized with acute heart failure to receive either nesiritide or placebo for 24 to 168 hours in addition to standard care. Coprimary end points were the change in dyspnea at 6 and 24 hours, as measured on a 7-point Likert scale, and the composite end point of rehospitalization for heart failure or death within 30 days. RESULTS: Patients randomly assigned to nesiritide, as compared with those assigned to placebo, more frequently reported markedly or moderately improved dyspnea at 6 hours (44.5% vs. 42.1%, P=0.03) and 24 hours (68.2% vs. 66.1%, P=0.007), but the prespecified level for significance (P
|
|
| 4. |
- White, Harvey D, et al.
(författare)
-
Darapladib for preventing ischemic events in stable coronary heart disease
- 2014
-
Ingår i: New England Journal of Medicine. - 0028-4793 .- 1533-4406. ; 370:18, s. 1702-1711
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND:Elevated lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A2 activity promotes the development of vulnerable atherosclerotic plaques, and elevated plasma levels of this enzyme are associated with an increased risk of coronary events. Darapladib is a selective oral inhibitor of lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A2.METHODS:In a double-blind trial, we randomly assigned 15,828 patients with stable coronary heart disease to receive either once-daily darapladib (at a dose of 160 mg) or placebo. The primary end point was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. Secondary end points included the components of the primary end point as well as major coronary events (death from coronary heart disease, myocardial infarction, or urgent coronary revascularization for myocardial ischemia) and total coronary events (death from coronary heart disease, myocardial infarction, hospitalization for unstable angina, or any coronary revascularization).RESULTS:During a median follow-up period of 3.7 years, the primary end point occurred in 769 of 7924 patients (9.7%) in the darapladib group and 819 of 7904 patients (10.4%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio in the darapladib group, 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85 to 1.03; P=0.20). There were also no significant between-group differences in the rates of the individual components of the primary end point or in all-cause mortality. Darapladib, as compared with placebo, reduced the rate of major coronary events (9.3% vs. 10.3%; hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.82 to 1.00; P=0.045) and total coronary events (14.6% vs. 16.1%; hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.84 to 0.98; P=0.02).CONCLUSIONS:In patients with stable coronary heart disease, darapladib did not significantly reduce the risk of the primary composite end point of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline; STABILITY ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00799903.).
|
|
| 5. |
- White, Harvey D., et al.
(författare)
-
Survival with Cardiac-Resynchronization Therapy in Mild Heart Failure
- 2014
-
Ingår i: New England Journal of Medicine. - 0028-4793 .- 1533-4406. ; 370:18, s. 1702-1711
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Elevated lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A(2) activity promotes the development of vulnerable atherosclerotic plaques, and elevated plasma levels of this enzyme are associated with an increased risk of coronary events. Darapladib is a selective oral inhibitor of lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A(2). Methods: In a double-blind trial, we randomly assigned 15,828 patients with stable coronary heart disease to receive either once-daily darapladib (at a dose of 160 mg) or placebo. The primary end point was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. Secondary end points included the components of the primary end point as well as major coronary events (death from coronary heart disease, myocardial infarction, or urgent coronary revascularization for myocardial ischemia) and total coronary events (death from coronary heart disease, myocardial infarction, hospitalization for unstable angina, or any coronary revascularization). Results: During a median follow-up period of 3.7 years, the primary end point occurred in 769 of 7924 patients (9.7%) in the darapladib group and 819 of 7904 patients (10.4%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio in the darapladib group, 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85 to 1.03; P=0.20). There were also no significant between-group differences in the rates of the individual components of the primary end point or in all-cause mortality. Darapladib, as compared with placebo, reduced the rate of major coronary events (9.3% vs. 10.3%; hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.82 to 1.00; P=0.045) and total coronary events (14.6% vs. 16.1%; hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.84 to 0.98; P=0.02). ConclusionsIn patients with stable coronary heart disease, darapladib did not significantly reduce the risk of the primary composite end point of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline; STABILITY ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00799903.)
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
