| 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. |
- Jung, Young-Eun, et al.
(författare)
-
The Korean version of the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale: An extended validation
- 2012
-
Ingår i: Stress and Health. - : John Wiley & Sons. - 1532-3005 .- 1532-2998. ; 28:4, s. 319-326
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale (CD‐RISC) is a brief self‐rating questionnaire for measuring resilience. The aims of the present study were to describe the development of a Korean version of the CD‐RISC (K‐CD‐RISC) and to more firmly establish its psychometric properties in terms of reliability and validity. The participants consisted of a general population sample (n = 194) and psychiatric outpatients (n = 127) with non‐psychotic mood or anxiety disorders. The K‐CD‐RISC score means (standard deviation) were 65.9 (13.6) in the general population and 50.4 (20.5) in the psychiatric outpatients. The mean score of the general population was significantly higher than that of the psychiatric outpatients. Exploratory factor analysis revealed five factors, and the obtained factor structure was verified through confirmatory factor analysis. In the general population, the Cronbach's α coefficient of the K‐CD‐RISC was found to be 0.92. Greater resilience was found to be associated with less perceived stress, anxiety and depression and with higher levels of positive affect and purpose in life. Taken together, our findings suggest that the K‐CD‐RISC has good psychometric properties and is a valid and reliable tool for assessing resilience.
|
|
