| 1. |
- Aad, G., et al.
(författare)
-
- 2011
-
swepub:Mat__t (refereegranskat)
|
|
| 2. |
- Aad, G., et al.
(författare)
-
- 2011
-
swepub:Mat__t (refereegranskat)
|
|
| 3. |
- Aad, G., et al.
(författare)
-
- 2012
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)
|
|
| 4. |
- Aad, G., et al.
(författare)
-
- 2013
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- Aad, G., et al.
(författare)
-
- 2012
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
- 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.
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
- Beral, V., et al.
(författare)
-
Ovarian cancer and smoking: individual participant meta-analysis including 28 114 women with ovarian cancer from 51 epidemiological studies
- 2012
-
Ingår i: The Lancet Oncology. - 1474-5488. ; 13:9, s. 946-956
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background Smoking has been linked to mucinous ovarian cancer, but its effects on other ovarian cancer subtypes and on overall ovarian cancer risk are unclear, and the findings from most studies with relevant data are unpublished. To assess these associations, we review the published and unpublished evidence. Methods Eligible epidemiological studies were identified by electronic searches, review articles, and discussions with colleagues. Individual participant data for 28 114 women with and 94 942 without ovarian cancer from 51 epidemiological studies were analysed centrally, yielding adjusted relative risks (RRs) of ovarian cancer in smokers compared with never smokers. Findings After exclusion of studies with hospital controls, in which smoking could have affected recruitment, overall ovarian cancer incidence was only slightly increased in current smokers compared with women who had never smoked (RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.01-1.11, p=0.01). Of 17 641 epithelial cancers with specified histology, 2314 (13%) were mucinous, 2360 (13%) endometrioid, 969 (5%) clear-cell, and 9086 (52%) serous. Smoking-related risks varied substantially across these subtypes (p(heterogeneity)<0.0001). For mucinous cancers, incidence was increased in current versus never smokers (1.79, 95% CI 1.60-2.00, p<0.0001), but the increase was mainly in borderline malignant rather than in fully malignant tumours (2.25, 95% CI 1.91-2.65 vs 1.49, 1.28-1.73; p(heterogeneity)=0.01; almost half the mucinous tumours were only borderline malignant). Both endometrioid (0.81, 95% CI 0.72-0.92, p=0.001) and clear-cell ovarian cancer risks (0.80, 95% CI 0.65-0.97, p=0.03) were reduced in current smokers, and there was no significant association for serous ovarian cancers (0.99, 95% CI 0.93-1.06, p=0.8). These associations did not vary significantly by 13 sociodemographic and personal characteristics of women including their body-mass index, parity, and use of alcohol, oral contraceptives, and menopausal hormone therapy. Interpretation The excess of mucinous ovarian cancers in smokers, which is mainly of tumours of borderline malignancy, is roughly counterbalanced by the deficit of endometrioid and clear-cell ovarian cancers. The substantial variation in smoking-related risks by tumour subtype is important for understanding ovarian carcinogenesis.
|
|
