| 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. |
- Thompson, Paul M., et al.
(författare)
-
The ENIGMA Consortium : large-scale collaborative analyses of neuroimaging and genetic data
- 2014
-
Ingår i: BRAIN IMAGING BEHAV. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1931-7557 .- 1931-7565. ; 8:2, s. 153-182
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The Enhancing NeuroImaging Genetics through Meta-Analysis (ENIGMA) Consortium is a collaborative network of researchers working together on a range of large-scale studies that integrate data from 70 institutions worldwide. Organized into Working Groups that tackle questions in neuroscience, genetics, and medicine, ENIGMA studies have analyzed neuroimaging data from over 12,826 subjects. In addition, data from 12,171 individuals were provided by the CHARGE consortium for replication of findings, in a total of 24,997 subjects. By meta-analyzing results from many sites, ENIGMA has detected factors that affect the brain that no individual site could detect on its own, and that require larger numbers of subjects than any individual neuroimaging study has currently collected. ENIGMA's first project was a genome-wide association study identifying common variants in the genome associated with hippocampal volume or intracranial volume. Continuing work is exploring genetic associations with subcortical volumes (ENIGMA2) and white matter microstructure (ENIGMA-DTI). Working groups also focus on understanding how schizophrenia, bipolar illness, major depression and attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) affect the brain. We review the current progress of the ENIGMA Consortium, along with challenges and unexpected discoveries made on the way.
|
|
| 3. |
- Afram, Basema, et al.
(författare)
-
Reasons for Institutionalization of People With Dementia: Informal Caregiver Reports From 8 European Countries
- 2014
-
Ingår i: Journal of the American Medical Directors Association. - : Elsevier BV. - 1525-8610. ; 15:2, s. 108-116
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objectives: To explore reasons for institutionalization of people with dementia according to informal caregivers as well as variation in reasons between countries. Design: An explorative cross-sectional study was conducted in 8 European countries. Setting: Per country, a minimum of 3 long term care facilities, offering care and accommodation as a package, participated in this study. Participating countries were selected to represent different geographic areas in Europe. Participants: Of the 791 informal caregivers involved in the RightTimePlaceCare project of people with dementia who were recently admitted to a long term care facility, 786 were included for this study. Measurements: As part of a semistructured interview, informal caregivers were asked the main reason for institutionalization in an open-ended question. Answers were categorized according to a conventional coding approach. All reasons were then quantified and tested. Results: Mainly patient-related reasons were stated, such as neuropsychiatric symptoms (25%), care dependency (24%), and cognition (19%). Neuropsychiatric symptoms were among the most often mentioned reasons in most countries. Besides patient-related reasons, caregiver burden and the inability of the informal caregiver to care for the patient were stated as reasons (both 15%). Further analyses showed countries differ significantly in reasons according to informal caregivers. Additionally, reasons were analyzed for spouses and child-caregivers, showing that spouses more often stated reasons related to themselves compared with child-caregivers. Conclusion: Multiple reasons contribute to the institutionalization for people with dementia, with several factors that may influence why there were country differences. Variation in the organization of dementia care and cultural aspects, or the relationship between the informal caregiver and person with dementia may be factors influencing the reasons. Because of a wide variation in reasons between countries, no one-size-fits-all approach can be offered to guide informal caregivers when facing the possibility of institutionalization of the person with dementia. (C) 2014 - American Medical Directors Association, Inc. All rights reserved.
|
|
