| 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. |
- Ay, Hakan, et al.
(författare)
-
Pathogenic Ischemic Stroke Phenotypes in the NINDS-Stroke Genetics Network
- 2014
-
Ingår i: Stroke. - 0039-2499. ; 45:12, s. 3589-3596
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: NINDS (National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke)-SiGN (Stroke Genetics Network) is an international consortium of ischemic stroke studies that aims to generate high-quality phenotype data to identify the genetic basis of pathogenic stroke subtypes. This analysis characterizes the etiopathogenetic basis of ischemic stroke and reliability of stroke classification in the consortium. METHODS: Fifty-two trained and certified adjudicators determined both phenotypic (abnormal test findings categorized in major pathogenic groups without weighting toward the most likely cause) and causative ischemic stroke subtypes in 16954 subjects with imaging-confirmed ischemic stroke from 12 US studies and 11 studies from 8 European countries using the web-based Causative Classification of Stroke System. Classification reliability was assessed with blinded readjudication of 1509 randomly selected cases. RESULTS: The distribution of pathogenic categories varied by study, age, sex, and race (P<0.001 for each). Overall, only 40% to 54% of cases with a given major ischemic stroke pathogenesis (phenotypic subtype) were classified into the same final causative category with high confidence. There was good agreement for both causative (κ 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.69-0.75) and phenotypic classifications (κ 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.70-0.75). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that pathogenic subtypes can be determined with good reliability in studies that include investigators with different expertise and background, institutions with different stroke evaluation protocols and geographic location, and patient populations with different epidemiological characteristics. The discordance between phenotypic and causative stroke subtypes highlights the fact that the presence of an abnormality in a patient with stroke does not necessarily mean that it is the cause of stroke.
|
|
