| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Klionsky, Daniel J., et al.
(author)
-
Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy
- 2012
-
In: Autophagy. - : Informa UK Limited. - 1554-8635 .- 1554-8627. ; 8:4, s. 445-544
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)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.
(author)
-
Effect of nesiritide in patients with acute decompensated heart failure
- 2011
-
In: The New England journal of medicine. - : Massachusetts Medical Society. - 0028-4793 .- 1533-4406. ; 365:1, s. 32-43
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)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. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Brooks-Worrell, B., et al.
(author)
-
Comparison of cryopreservation methods on T-cell responses to islet and control antigens from type 1 diabetic patients and controls
- 2011
-
In: Diabetes/Metabolism Research & Reviews. - : Wiley. - 1520-7552. ; 27:8, s. 737-745
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background Type 1 diabetes (T1D) is a cell-mediated autoimmune disease characterized by destruction of the pancreatic islet cells. The use of cryopreserved cells is preferable to the use of freshly isolated cells to monitor clinical trials to decrease assay and laboratory variability. Methods The T-Cell Workshop Committee of the Immunology of Diabetes Society compared two widely accepted T-cell freezing protocols (warm and cold) to freshly isolated peripheral blood mononuclear cells from patients with T1D and controls in terms of recovery, viability, cell subset composition, and performance in functional assays currently in use in T1D-related research. Nine laboratories participated in the study with four different functional assays included. Results The cold freezing method yielded higher recovery and viability compared with the warm freezing method. Irrespective of freezing protocol, B cells and CD8+ T cells were enriched, monocyte fraction decreased, and islet antigen-reactive responses were lower in frozen versus fresh cells. However, these results need to take in to account that the overall response to islet autoantigens was low in some assays. Conclusions In the current study, none of the tested T-cell functional assays performed well using frozen samples. More research is required to identify a freezing method and a T-cell functional assay that will produce responses in patients with T1D comparable to responses using fresh peripheral blood mononuclear cells. Copyright (C) 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
|
|
