| 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. |
- Miller, David T., et al.
(författare)
-
Consensus Statement : Chromosomal Microarray Is a First-Tier Clinical Diagnostic Test for Individuals with Developmental Disabilities or Congenital Anomalies
- 2010
-
Ingår i: American Journal of Human Genetics. - : Elsevier BV. - 0002-9297 .- 1537-6605. ; 86:5, s. 749-764
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Chromosomal microarray (CMA) is increasingly utilized for genetic testing of individuals with unexplained developmental delay/intellectual disability (DD/ID), autism spectrum disorders (ASD), or multiple congenital anomalies (MCA). Performing CMA and G-banded karyotyping on every patient substantially increases the total cost of genetic testing. The International Standard Cytogenomic Array (ISCA) Consortium held two international workshops and conducted a literature review of 33 studies, including 21,698 patients tested by CMA. We provide an evidence-based summary of clinical cytogenetic testing comparing CMA to G-banded karyotyping with respect to technical advantages and limitations, diagnostic yield for various types of chromosomal aberrations, and issues that affect test interpretation. CMA offers a much higher diagnostic yield (15%-20%) for genetic testing of individuals with unexplained DD/ID, ASD, or MCA than a G-banded karyotype (similar to 3%, excluding Down syndrome and other recognizable chromosomal syndromes), primarily because of its higher sensitivity for submicroscopic deletions and duplications. Truly balanced rearrangements and low-level mosaicism are generally not detectable by arrays, but these are relatively infrequent causes of abnormal phenotypes in this population (<1%). Available evidence strongly supports the use of CMA in place of G-banded karyotyping as the first-tier cytogenetic diagnostic test for patients with DD/ID, ASD, or MCA. G-banded karyotype analysis should be reserved for patients with obvious chromosomal syndromes (e.g., Down syndrome), a family history of chromosomal rearrangement, or a history of multiple miscarriages.
|
|
| 3. |
- de Leeuw, Nicole, et al.
(författare)
-
Diagnostic Interpretation of Array Data Using Public Databases and Internet Sources
- 2012
-
Ingår i: Human Mutation. - : Hindawi Limited. - 1059-7794 .- 1098-1004. ; 33:6, s. 930-940
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The range of commercially available array platforms and analysis software packages is expanding and their utility is improving, making reliable detection of copy-number variants (CNVs) relatively straightforward. Reliable interpretation of CNV data, however, is often difficult and requires expertise. With our knowledge of the human genome growing rapidly, applications for array testing continuously broadening, and the resolution of CNV detection increasing, this leads to great complexity in interpreting what can be daunting data. Correct CNV interpretation and optimal use of the genotype information provided by single-nucleotide polymorphism probes on an array depends largely on knowledge present in various resources. In addition to the availability of host laboratories' own datasets and national registries, there are several public databases and Internet resources with genotype and phenotype information that can be used for array data interpretation. With so many resources now available, it is important to know which are fit-for-purpose in a diagnostic setting. We summarize the characteristics of the most commonly used Internet databases and resources, and propose a general data interpretation strategy that can be used for comparative hybridization, comparative intensity, and genotype-based array data.
|
|
