| 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. |
- Branstrom, Richard, et al.
(författare)
-
Perceptions of genetic research and testing among members of families with an increased risk of malignant melanoma
- 2012
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Cancer. - : Elsevier BV. - 1879-0852 .- 0959-8049. ; 48:16, s. 3052-3062
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Several melanoma susceptibility genes have been identified. As part of the international genetic research programme of the GenoMEL consortiums research on genetic mutations in melanoma families, the aim of this study was to examine family members' views about their risk of melanoma, gene testing and genetic research. Methods: Self-report data were gathered using online and paper-based surveys available in four languages among 312 individuals (62% from Europe, 18% from Australia, 13% from the United States of America (USA) and 7% from Israel). Results: Fifty three percent had been diagnosed with a melanoma, and 12% had a positive susceptibility gene test result. Respondents with many moles and freckles were more likely to perceive themselves at risk for developing melanoma (odds ratio [OR](Freckles) = 2.24 with 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.18-4.26; ORMany (moles) = 6.92, 95% CI = 2.37-20.23). Respondents who had received a non-informative (negative) genetic test result were much less likely to perceive themselves at increased risk (OR = 0.17, 95% CI = 0.04-0.73). Safe-guards were perceived as important to protect genetic information, but there was also support for the storage and exchange of such information. Overall, respondents were in favour of genetic testing, even if current knowledge about melanoma risk genes is still limited. Contrary to previous studies, participants reported that a non-informative (negative) genetic test result, although not necessarily indicative of lower risk of melanoma, would be likely to reduce their practise of preventive behaviours. Conclusions: Participants were influenced by their phenotype and test results in risk estimations. They expressed positive views on genetic research and towards genetic testing, but reported that a non-informative (negative) test result might be associated with an (erroneous) perception of reduced risk and fewer preventive behaviours. These results highlight the urgency of improving the quality of genetic counselling and increasing the effectiveness of communication regarding genetic test results. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
|
|
