| 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. |
- Ludvigsson, Jonas F., et al.
(författare)
-
Use of computerized algorithm to identify individuals in need of testing for celiac disease
- 2013
-
Ingår i: JAMIA Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 1067-5027 .- 1527-974X. ; 20:E2, s. E306-E310
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background and aim Celiac disease (CD) is a lifelong immune-mediated disease with excess mortality. Early diagnosis is important to minimize disease symptoms, complications, and consumption of healthcare resources. Most patients remain undiagnosed. We developed two electronic medical record (EMR)-based algorithms to identify patients at high risk of CD and in need of CD screening. Methods (I) Using natural language processing (NLP), we searched EMRs for 16 free text (and related) terms in 216 CD patients and 280 controls. (II) EMRs were also searched for ICD9 (International Classification of Disease) codes suggesting an increased risk of CD in 202 patients with CD and 524 controls. For each approach, we determined the optimal number of hits to be assigned as CD cases. To assess performance of these algorithms, sensitivity and specificity were calculated. Results Using two hits as the cut-off, the NLP algorithm identified 72.9% of all celiac patients (sensitivity), and ruled out CD in 89.9% of the controls (specificity). In a representative US population of individuals without a prior celiac diagnosis (assuming that 0.6% had undiagnosed CD), this NLP algorithm could identify a group of individuals where 4.2% would have CD (positive predictive value). ICD9 code search using three hits as the cut-off had a sensitivity of 17.1% and a specificity of 88.5% (positive predictive value was 0.9%). Discussion and conclusions This study shows that computerized EMR-based algorithms can help identify patients at high risk of CD. NLP-based techniques demonstrate higher sensitivity and positive predictive values than algorithms based on ICD9 code searches.
|
|
