| 1. |
- 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.
|
|
| 2. |
- Galluzzi, L, et al.
(author)
-
Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring cell death in higher eukaryotes.
- 2009
-
In: Cell death and differentiation. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1476-5403 .- 1350-9047. ; 16:8, s. 1093-107
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Cell death is essential for a plethora of physiological processes, and its deregulation characterizes numerous human diseases. Thus, the in-depth investigation of cell death and its mechanisms constitutes a formidable challenge for fundamental and applied biomedical research, and has tremendous implications for the development of novel therapeutic strategies. It is, therefore, of utmost importance to standardize the experimental procedures that identify dying and dead cells in cell cultures and/or in tissues, from model organisms and/or humans, in healthy and/or pathological scenarios. Thus far, dozens of methods have been proposed to quantify cell death-related parameters. However, no guidelines exist regarding their use and interpretation, and nobody has thoroughly annotated the experimental settings for which each of these techniques is most appropriate. Here, we provide a nonexhaustive comparison of methods to detect cell death with apoptotic or nonapoptotic morphologies, their advantages and pitfalls. These guidelines are intended for investigators who study cell death, as well as for reviewers who need to constructively critique scientific reports that deal with cellular demise. Given the difficulties in determining the exact number of cells that have passed the point-of-no-return of the signaling cascades leading to cell death, we emphasize the importance of performing multiple, methodologically unrelated assays to quantify dying and dead cells.
|
|
| 3. |
- Klionsky, Daniel J., et al.
(author)
-
Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy in higher eukaryotes
- 2008
-
In: Autophagy. - : Landes Bioscience. - 1554-8627 .- 1554-8635. ; 4:2, s. 151-175
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Research in autophagy continues to accelerate,1 and as a result many new scientists are entering the field. Accordingly, it is important to establish a standard set of criteria for monitoring macroautophagy in different organisms. Recent reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose.2,3 There are many useful and convenient methods that can be used to monitor macroautophagy in yeast, but relatively few in other model systems, and there is much confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure macroautophagy in higher eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers of autophagosomes versus those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway; thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from fully functional autophagy that includes delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of the methods that can be used by investigators who are attempting to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as by reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that investigate these processes. This set of guidelines is 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 verify an autophagic response.
|
|
| 4. |
- Lawley, Justin S., et al.
(author)
-
Cerebral spinal fluid dynamics : effect of hypoxia and implications for high-altitude illness
- 2016
-
In: Journal of applied physiology. - : American Physiological Society. - 8750-7587 .- 1522-1601. ; 120:2, s. 251-262
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The pathophysiology of acute mountain sickness and high-altitude cerebral edema, the cerebral forms of high-altitude illness, remain uncertain and controversial. Persistently elevated or pathological fluctuations in intracranial pressure are thought to cause symptoms similar to those reported by individuals suffering cerebral forms of high-altitude illness. This review first focuses on the basic physiology of the craniospinal system, including a detailed discussion of the long-term and dynamic regulation of intracranial pressure. Thereafter, we critically examine the available literature, based primarily on invasive pressure monitoring, that suggests intracranial pressure is acutely elevated at altitude due to brain swelling and/or elevated sagittal sinus pressure, but normalizes over time. We hypothesize that fluctuations in intracranial pressure occur around a slightly elevated or normal mean intracranial pressure, in conjunction with oscillations in arterial PO2 and arterial blood pressure. Then these modest fluctuations in intracranial pressure, in concert with direct vascular stretch due to dilatation and/or increased blood pressure transmission, activate the trigeminal vascular system and cause symptoms of acute mountain sickness. Elevated brain water (vasogenic edema) may be due to breakdown of the blood-brain barrier. However, new information suggests cerebral spinal fluid flux into the brain may be an important factor. Regardless of the source (or mechanisms responsible) for the excess brain water, brain swelling occurs, and a "tight fit" brain would be a major risk factor to produce symptoms; activities that produce large changes in brain volume and cause fluctuations in blood pressure are likely contributing factors.
|
|
| 5. |
- Mulder, Renée L., et al.
(author)
-
Communication and ethical considerations for fertility preservation for patients with childhood, adolescent, and young adult cancer : recommendations from the PanCareLIFE Consortium and the International Late Effects of Childhood Cancer Guideline Harmonization Group
- 2021
-
In: The Lancet Oncology. - 1470-2045 .- 1474-5488. ; 22:2, s. 68-80
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Patients with childhood, adolescent, and young adult cancer who will be treated with gonadotoxic therapies are at increased risk for infertility. Many patients and their families desire biological children but effective communication about treatment-related infertility risk and procedures for fertility preservation does not always happen. The PanCareLIFE Consortium and the International Late Effects of Childhood Cancer Guideline Harmonization Group reviewed the literature and developed a clinical practice guideline that provides recommendations for ongoing communication methods for fertility preservation for patients who were diagnosed with childhood, adolescent, and young adult cancer at age 25 years or younger and their families. Moreover, the guideline panel formulated considerations of the ethical implications that are associated with these procedures. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology was used to grade the evidence and recommendations. In this clinical practice guideline, existing evidence and international expertise are combined to develop transparent recommendations that are easy to use to facilitate ongoing communication between health-care providers and patients with childhood, adolescent, and young adult cancer who might be at high risk for fertility impairment and their families.
|
|
