| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- 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.
|
|
| 4. |
- Niemi, MEK, et al.
(author)
-
- 2021
-
swepub:Mat__t
|
|
| 5. |
- Daneshjou, Roxana, et al.
(author)
-
Working toward precision medicine : Predicting phenotypes from exomes in the Critical Assessment of Genome Interpretation (CAGI) challenges
- 2017
-
In: Human Mutation. - : Hindawi Limited. - 1059-7794 .- 1098-1004. ; 38:9, s. 1182-1192
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Precision medicine aims to predict a patient's disease risk and best therapeutic options by using that individual's genetic sequencing data. The Critical Assessment of Genome Interpretation (CAGI) is a community experiment consisting of genotype-phenotype prediction challenges; participants build models, undergo assessment, and share key findings. For CAGI 4, three challenges involved using exome-sequencing data: Crohn's disease, bipolar disorder, and warfarin dosing. Previous CAGI challenges included prior versions of the Crohn's disease challenge. Here, we discuss the range of techniques used for phenotype prediction as well as the methods used for assessing predictive models. Additionally, we outline some of the difficulties associated with making predictions and evaluating them. The lessons learned from the exome challenges can be applied to both research and clinical efforts to improve phenotype prediction from genotype. In addition, these challenges serve as a vehicle for sharing clinical and research exome data in a secure manner with scientists who have a broad range of expertise, contributing to a collaborative effort to advance our understanding of genotype-phenotype relationships.
|
|
| 6. |
- Key, Timothy J., et al.
(author)
-
Consumption of Meat, Fish, Dairy Products, Eggs and Risk of Ischemic Heart Disease : A Prospective Study of 7198 Incident Cases Among 409,885 Participants in the Pan-European EPIC Cohort
- 2019
-
In: Circulation. - : Wolters Kluwer. - 0009-7322 .- 1524-4539. ; 139:25, s. 2835-2845
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- BACKGROUND: There is uncertainty about the relevance of animal foods to the etiology of ischemic heart disease (IHD). We examined meat, fish, dairy products and eggs and risk for IHD in the pan-European EPIC cohort.METHODS: A prospective study of 409,885 men and women in nine European countries. Diet was assessed using validated questionnaires, calibrated using 24-hour recalls. Lipids and blood pressure were measured in a subsample. During 12.6 years mean follow up, 7198 participants had a myocardial infarction or died from IHD. The relationships of animal foods with risk were examined using Cox regression with adjustment for other animal foods and relevant covariates.RESULTS: The hazard ratio (HR) for IHD was 1.19 (95% CI 1.06-1.33) for a 100 g/d increment in intake of red and processed meat, and this remained significant after excluding the first 4 years of follow-up (HR 1.25 [1.09-1.42]). Risk was inversely associated with intakes of yogurt (HR 0.93 [0.89-0.98] per 100 g/d increment), cheese (HR 0.92 [0.86-0.98] per 30 g/d increment) and eggs (HR 0.93 [0.88-0.99] per 20 g/d increment); the associations with yogurt and eggs were attenuated and non-significant after excluding the first 4 years of follow-up. Risk was not significantly associated with intakes of poultry, fish or milk. In analyses modelling dietary substitutions, replacement of 100 kcal/d from red and processed meat with 100 kcal/d from fatty fish, yogurt, cheese or eggs was associated with approximately 20% lower risk of IHD. Consumption of red and processed meat was positively associated with serum non-HDL cholesterol concentration and systolic blood pressure, and consumption of cheese was inversely associated with serum non-HDL cholesterol.CONCLUSIONS: Risk for IHD was positively associated with consumption of red and processed meat, and inversely associated with consumption of yogurt, cheese and eggs, although the associations with yogurt and eggs may be influenced by reverse causation bias. It is not clear whether the associations with red and processed meat and cheese reflect causality, but they were consistent with the associations of these foods with plasma non-HDL cholesterol, and for red and processed meat with systolic blood pressure, which could mediate such effects.
|
|
