| 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. |
- Menzies, Scott W, et al.
(författare)
-
Dermoscopic Evaluation of Nodular Melanoma.
- 2013
-
Ingår i: JAMA dermatology (Chicago, Ill.). - : American Medical Association (AMA). - 2168-6084 .- 2168-6068. ; 149:6, s. 699-709
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- IMPORTANCE Nodular melanoma (NM) is a rapidly progressing potentially lethal skin tumor for which early diagnosis is critical. OBJECTIVE To determine the dermoscopy features of NM. DESIGN Eighty-three cases of NM, 134 of invasive non-NM, 115 of nodular benign melanocytic tumors, and 135 of nodular nonmelanocytic tumors were scored for dermoscopy features using modified and previously described methods. Lesions were separated into amelanotic/hypomelanotic or pigmented to assess outcomes. SETTING Predominantly hospital-based clinics from 5 continents. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Sensitivity, specificity, and odds ratios for features/models for the diagnosis of melanoma. RESULTS Nodular melanoma occurred more frequently as amelanotic/hypomelanotic (37.3%) than did invasive non-NM (7.5%). Pigmented NM had a more frequent (compared with invasive non-NM; in descending order of odds ratio) symmetrical pigmentation pattern (5.8% vs 0.8%), large-diameter vessels, areas of homogeneous blue pigmentation, symmetrical shape, predominant peripheral vessels, blue-white veil, pink color, black color, and milky red/pink areas. Pigmented NM less frequently displayed an atypical broadened network, pigment network or pseudonetwork, multiple blue-gray dots, scarlike depigmentation, irregularly distributed and sized brown dots and globules, tan color, irregularly shaped depigmentation, and irregularly distributed and sized dots and globules of any color. The most important positive correlating features of pigmented NM vs nodular nonmelanoma were peripheral black dots/globules, multiple brown dots, irregular black dots/globules, blue-white veil, homogeneous blue pigmentation, 5 to 6 colors, and black color. A model to classify a lesion as melanocytic gave a high sensitivity (>98.0%) for both nodular pigmented and nonnodular pigmented melanoma but a lower sensitivity for amelanotic/hypomelanotic NM (84%). A method for diagnosing amelanotic/hypomelanotic malignant lesions (including basal cell carcinoma) gave a 93% sensitivity and 70% specificity for NM. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE When a progressively growing, symmetrically patterned melanocytic nodule is identified, NM needs to be excluded.
|
|
