| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Klionsky, Daniel J., et al.
(author)
-
Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy
- 2012
-
In: Autophagy. - : Informa UK Limited. - 1554-8635 .- 1554-8627. ; 8:4, s. 445-544
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)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.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
- Allinson, James, et al.
(author)
-
Collating data from major European population studies - The CADSET (Chronic airway disease early stratification) clinical research collaboration
- 2020
-
In: European Respiratory Journal. - : European Respiratory Society (ERS). - 0903-1936 .- 1399-3003. ; 56:suppl 64
-
Journal article (other academic/artistic)abstract
- Background: European population cohorts continue to expand our understanding of chronic airways disease and inter-study collaboration may help address the inevitable limitations of study size, duration, era and geography. Towards this aim, CADSET has collated data from ten major general population European cohorts: Asklepios; Copenhagen City Heart Study; Copenhagen General Population Study; ECRHS; HUNT; LEAD; Lifelines, OLIN, Rotterdam Study and WSAS. We included males and females aged 20 to 95 years with baseline demographic and spirometry data.Results: Data from 262,829 individuals (44% male) from multiple European countries provided good coverage across all adult ages (Fig.1A). Recruitment occurred in every year from 1976 through 2020. 23% were current-smokers and 42% were never-smokers, a pattern varying with advancing age (Fig.1B). The prevalence of airflow limitation varied according to whether lower limit of normal (LLN) or <0.70 thresholds were applied, increasing with age if the latter was used (Fig.1C).Interpretation: These results fit with previous reports, however the size, geographical reach and span of recruitment provided by this collaboration provides a unique opportunity to explore chronic airways disease development. Together, we are now pursuing research questions previously beyond the scope of individual cohort studies.
|
|
