| 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. |
- Carlsson, Lars, et al.
(författare)
-
Use of Historic Metabolic Biotransformation Data as a Means of Anticipating Metabolic Sites Using MetaPrint2D and Bioclipse
- 2010
-
Ingår i: BMC Bioinformatics. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1471-2105. ; 11, s. 362-
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Predicting metabolic sites is important in the drug discovery process to aid in rapid compound optimisation. No interactive tool exists and most of the useful tools are quite expensive.Results: Here a fast and reliable method to analyse ligands and visualise potential metabolic sites is presented which is based on annotated metabolic data, described by circular fingerprints. The method is available via the graphical workbench Bioclipse, which is equipped with advanced features in cheminformatics.Conclusions: Due to the speed of predictions (less than 50 ms per molecule), scientists can get real time decision support when editing chemical structures. Bioclipse is a rich client, which means that all calculations are performed on the local computer and do not require network connection. Bioclipse and MetaPrint2D are free for all users, released under open source licenses, and available from http://www.bioclipse.net.
|
|
| 3. |
- Ederth, Thomas, et al.
(författare)
-
Resistance of Galactoside-Terminated Alkanethiol Self-Assembled Monolayers to Marine Fouling Organisms
- 2011
-
Ingår i: ACS Applied Materials and Interfaces. - : American Chemical Society. - 1944-8244 .- 1944-8252. ; 3:10, s. 3890-3901
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Self-assembled monolayers (SAMs) of galactoside-terminated alkanethiols have protein-resistance properties which can be tuned via the degree of methylation [Langmuir 2005, 21, 2971-2980]. Specifically, a partially methylated compound was more resistant to nonspecific protein adsorption than the hydroxylated or fully methylated counterparts. We investigate whether this also holds true for resistance to the attachment and adhesion of a range of marine species, in order to clarify to what extent resistance to protein adsorption correlates with the more complex adhesion of fouling organisms. The partially methylated galactoside-terminated SAM was further compared to a mixed monolayer of omega-substituted methyl- and hydroxyl-terminated alkanethiols with wetting properties and surface ratio of hydroxyl to methyl groups matching that of the galactoside. The settlement (initial attachment) and adhesion strength of four model marine fouling organisms were investigated, representing both micro- and macrofoulers; two bacteria (Cobetia marina and Marinobacter hydrocarbonoclasticus), barnacle cypris larvae (Balanus amphitrite), and algal zoospores (Ulva linza). The minimum in protein adsorption onto the partially methylated galactoside surface was partly reproduced in the marine fouling assays, providing some support for a relationship between protein resistance and adhesion of marine fouling organisms. The mixed alkanethiol SAM, which was matched in wettability to the partially methylated galactoside SAM, consistently showed higher settlement (initial attachment) of test organisms than the galactoside, implying that both wettability and surface chemistry are insufficient to explain differences in fouling resistance. We suggest that differences in the structure of interfacial water may explain the variation in adhesion to these SAMs.
|
|
