| 1. |
- 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.
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Alfvén, T, et al.
(författare)
-
[UN health goals hard to reach]
- 2013
-
Ingår i: Lakartidningen. - 0023-7205. ; 110:1-2, s. 24-6
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
- Diwan, Vishal, et al.
(författare)
-
Antibiotics and antibiotic-resistant bacteria in waters associated with a hospital in Ujjain, India
- 2010
-
Ingår i: BMC Public Health. - : BioMed Central. - 1471-2458. ; 10:414
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Concerns have been raised about the public health implications of the presence of antibiotic residues in the aquatic environment and their effect on the development of bacterial resistance. While there is information on antibiotic residue levels in hospital effluent from some other countries, information on antibiotic residue levels in effluent from Indian hospitals is not available. Also, concurrent studies on antibiotic prescription quantity in a hospital and antibiotic residue levels and resistant bacteria in the effluent of the same hospital are few. Therefore, we quantified antibiotic residues in waters associated with a hospital in India and assessed their association, if any, with quantities of antibiotic prescribed in the hospital and the susceptibility of Escherichia coli found in the hospital effluent. Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted in a teaching hospital outside the city of Ujjain in India. Seven antibiotics - amoxicillin, ceftriaxone, amikacin, ofloxacin, ciprofloxacin, norfloxacin and levofloxacin - were selected. Prescribed quantities were obtained from hospital records. The samples of the hospital associated water were analysed for the above mentioned antibiotics using well developed and validated liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry technique after selectively isolating the analytes from the matrix using solid phase extraction. Escherichia coli isolates from these waters were tested for antibiotic susceptibility, by standard Kirby Bauer disc diffusion method using Clinical and Laboratory Standard Institute breakpoints. Results: Ciprofloxacin was the highest prescribed antibiotic in the hospital and its residue levels in the hospital wastewater were also the highest. In samples of the municipal water supply and the groundwater, no antibiotics were detected. There was a positive correlation between the quantity of antibiotics prescribed in the hospital and antibiotic residue levels in the hospital wastewater. Wastewater samples collected in the afternoon contained both a higher number and higher levels of antibiotics compared to samples collected in the morning hours. No amikacin was found in the wastewater, but E. coli isolates from all wastewater samples were resistant to amikacin. Although ciprofloxacin was the most prevalent antibiotic detected in the wastewater, E. coli was not resistant to it. Conclusions: Antibiotics are entering the aquatic environment of countries like India through hospital effluent. Indepth studies are needed to establish the correlation, if any, between the quantities of antibiotics prescribed in hospitals and the levels of antibiotic residues found in hospital effluent. Further, the effect of this on the development of bacterial resistance in the environment and its subsequent public health impact need thorough assessment.
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
