| 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. |
- Jin, Guangfu, et al.
(författare)
-
Validation of prostate cancer risk-related loci identified from genome-wide association studies using family-based association analysis : evidence from the International Consortium for Prostate Cancer Genetics (ICPCG)
- 2012
-
Ingår i: Human Genetics. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0340-6717 .- 1432-1203. ; 131:7, s. 1095-1103
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Multiple prostate cancer (PCa) risk-related loci have been discovered by genome-wide association studies (GWAS) based on case-control designs. However, GWAS findings may be confounded by population stratification if cases and controls are inadvertently drawn from different genetic backgrounds. In addition, since these loci were identified in cases with predominantly sporadic disease, little is known about their relationships with hereditary prostate cancer (HPC). The association between seventeen reported PCa susceptibility loci was evaluated with a family-based association test using 1,979 hereditary PCa families of European descent collected by members of the International Consortium for Prostate Cancer Genetics, with a total of 5,730 affected men. The risk alleles for 8 of the 17 loci were significantly over-transmitted from parents to affected offspring, including SNPs residing in 8q24 (regions 1, 2 and 3), 10q11, 11q13, 17q12 (region 1), 17q24 and Xp11. In subgroup analyses, three loci, at 8q24 (regions 1 and 2) plus 17q12, were significantly over-transmitted in hereditary PCa families with five or more affected members, while loci at 3p12, 8q24 (region 2), 11q13, 17q12 (region 1), 17q24 and Xp11 were significantly over-transmitted in HPC families with an average age of diagnosis at 65 years or less. Our results indicate that at least a subset of PCa risk-related loci identified by case-control GWAS are also associated with disease risk in HPC families.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Teerlink, Craig C., et al.
(författare)
-
Association analysis of 9,560 prostate cancer cases from the International Consortium of Prostate Cancer Genetics confirms the role of reported prostate cancer associated SNPs for familial disease
- 2014
-
Ingår i: Human Genetics. - : Springer. - 0340-6717 .- 1432-1203. ; 133:3, s. 347-356
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Previous GWAS studies have reported significant associations between various common SNPs and prostate cancer risk using cases unselected for family history. How these variants influence risk in familial prostate cancer is not well studied. Here, we analyzed 25 previously reported SNPs across 14 loci from prior prostate cancer GWAS. The International Consortium for Prostate Cancer Genetics (ICPCG) previously validated some of these using a family-based association method (FBAT). However, this approach suffered reduced power due to the conditional statistics implemented in FBAT. Here, we use a case-control design with an empirical analysis strategy to analyze the ICPCG resource for association between these 25 SNPs and familial prostate cancer risk. Fourteen sites contributed 12,506 samples (9,560 prostate cancer cases, 3,368 with aggressive disease, and 2,946 controls from 2,283 pedigrees). We performed association analysis with Genie software which accounts for relationships. We analyzed all familial prostate cancer cases and the subset of aggressive cases. For the familial prostate cancer phenotype, 20 of the 25 SNPs were at least nominally associated with prostate cancer and 16 remained significant after multiple testing correction (p a parts per thousand currency sign 1E (-3)) occurring on chromosomal bands 6q25, 7p15, 8q24, 10q11, 11q13, 17q12, 17q24, and Xp11. For aggressive disease, 16 of the SNPs had at least nominal evidence and 8 were statistically significant including 2p15. The results indicate that the majority of common, low-risk alleles identified in GWAS studies for all prostate cancer also contribute risk for familial prostate cancer, and that some may contribute risk to aggressive disease.
|
|
