| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- 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.
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- Lang, Justin J., et al.
(författare)
-
Top 10 International Priorities for Physical Fitness Research and Surveillance Among Children and Adolescents : A Twin-Panel Delphi Study
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Sports Medicine. - New Zealand : Adis International Ltd.. - 0112-1642 .- 1179-2035. ; 53:2, s. 549-564
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background The measurement of physical fitness has a history that dates back nearly 200 years. Recently, there has been an increase in international research and surveillance on physical fitness creating a need for setting international priorities that could help guide future efforts. Objective This study aimed to produce a list of the top 10 international priorities for research and surveillance on physical fitness among children and adolescents. Methods Using a twin-panel Delphi method, two independent panels consisting of 46 international experts were identified (panel 1 = 28, panel 2 = 18). The panel participants were asked to list up to five priorities for research or surveillance (round 1), and then rated the items from their own panel on a 5-point Likert scale of importance (round 2). In round 3, experts were asked to rate the priorities identified by the other panel. Results There was strong between-panel agreement (panel 1: r(s) = 0.76, p < 0.01; panel 2: r(s) = 0.77, p < 0.01) in the priorities identified. The list of the final top 10 priorities included (i) "conduct longitudinal studies to assess changes in fitness and associations with health". This was followed by (ii) "use fitness surveillance to inform decision making", and (iii) "implement regular and consistent international/national fitness surveys using common measures". Conclusions The priorities identified in this study provide guidance for future international collaborations and research efforts on the physical fitness of children and adolescents over the next decade and beyond.
|
|
