| 1. |
- Niemi, MEK, et al.
(författare)
-
- 2021
-
swepub:Mat__t
|
|
| 2. |
- Kanai, M, et al.
(författare)
-
- 2023
-
swepub:Mat__t
|
|
| 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. |
- Cremers, Ruben G., et al.
(författare)
-
The role of the prostate cancer gene 3 urine test in addition to serum prostate-specific antigen level in prostate cancer screening among breast cancer, early-onset gene mutation carriers
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Urologic Oncology: Seminars and Original Investigations. - : Elsevier BV. - 1078-1439. ; 33:5, s. 19-202
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective: To evaluate the additive value of the prostate cancer gene 3 (PCA3) urine test to serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) in prostate cancer (PC) screening among breast cancer, early-onset gene (BRCA) mutation carriers. This study was performed among the Dutch participants of IMPACT, a large international study on the effectiveness of PSA screening among BRCA mutation carriers. Materials and methods: Urinary PCA3 was measured in 191 BRCA1 mutation carriers, 75 BRCA2 mutation carriers, and 308 noncarriers. The physicians and participants were blinded for the results. Serum PSA level≥3.0. ng/ml was used to indicate prostate biopsies. PCA3 was evaluated (1) as an independent indicator for prostate biopsies and (2) as an indicator for prostate biopsies among men with an elevated PSA level. PC detected up to the 2-year screening was used as gold standard as end-of-study biopsies were not performed. Results: Overall, 23 PCs were diagnosed, 20 of which were in men who had an elevated PSA level in the initial screening round. (1) PCA3, successfully determined in 552 participants, was elevated in 188 (cutoff≥25; 34%) or 134 (cutoff≥35; 24%) participants, including 2 of the 3 PCs missed by PSA. PCA3 would have added 157 (≥25; 28%) or 109 (≥35; 20%) biopsy sessions to screening with PSA only. (2) Elevated PCA3 as a requirement for biopsies in addition to PSA would have saved 37 (cutoff≥25) or 43 (cutoff≥35) of the 68 biopsy sessions, and 7 or 11 PCs would have been missed, respectively, including multiple high-risk PCs. So far, PCA3 performed best among BRCA2 mutation carriers, but the numbers are still small. Because PCA3 was not used to indicate prostate biopsies, its true diagnostic value cannot be calculated. Conclusions: The results do not provide evidence for PCA3 as a useful additional indicator of prostate biopsies in BRCA mutation carriers, as many participants had an elevated PCA3 in the absence of PC. This must be interpreted with caution because PCA3 was not used to indicate biopsies. Many participants diagnosed with PC had low PCA3, making it invalid as a restrictive marker for prostate biopsies in men with elevated PSA levels.
|
|
| 7. |
- ODonnell, Michael, et al.
(författare)
-
Registered Replication Report: Dijksterhuis and van Knippenberg (1998)
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Perspectives on Psychological Science. - : SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD. - 1745-6916 .- 1745-6924. ; 13:2, s. 268-294
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Dijksterhuis and van Knippenberg (1998) reported that participants primed with a category associated with intelligence (professor) subsequently performed 13% better on a trivia test than participants primed with a category associated with a lack of intelligence (soccer hooligans). In two unpublished replications of this study designed to verify the appropriate testing procedures, Dijksterhuis, van Knippenberg, and Holland observed a smaller difference between conditions (2%-3%) as well as a gender difference: Men showed the effect (9.3% and 7.6%), but women did not (0.3% and -0.3%). The procedure used in those replications served as the basis for this multilab Registered Replication Report. A total of 40 laboratories collected data for this project, and 23 of these laboratories met all inclusion criteria. Here we report the meta-analytic results for those 23 direct replications (total N = 4,493), which tested whether performance on a 30-item general-knowledge trivia task differed between these two priming conditions (results of supplementary analyses of the data from all 40 labs, N = 6,454, are also reported). We observed no overall difference in trivia performance between participants primed with the professor category and those primed with the hooligan category (0.14%) and no moderation by gender.
|
|
| 8. |
- Quiquet, A., et al.
(författare)
-
Sensitivity of a Greenland ice sheet model to atmospheric forcing fields
- 2012
-
Ingår i: The Cryosphere. - : Copernicus GmbH. - 1994-0424. ; 6:5, s. 999-1018
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Predicting the climate for the future and how it will impact ice sheet evolution requires coupling ice sheet models with climate models. However, before we attempt to develop a realistic coupled setup, we propose, in this study, to first analyse the impact of a model simulated climate on an ice sheet. We undertake this exercise for a set of regional and global climate models. Modelled near surface air temperature and precipitation are provided as upper boundary conditions to the GRISLI (GRenoble Ice Shelf and Land Ice model) hybrid ice sheet model (ISM) in its Greenland configuration. After 20 kyrs of simulation, the resulting ice sheets highlight the differences between the climate models. While modelled ice sheet sizes are generally comparable to the observed one, there are considerable deviations among the ice sheets on regional scales. These deviations can be explained by biases in temperature and precipitation near the coast. This is especially true in the case of global models. But the deviations between the climate models are also due to the differences in the atmospheric general circulation. To account for these differences in the context of coupling ice sheet models with climate models, we conclude that appropriate downscaling methods will be needed. In some cases, systematic corrections of the climatic variables at the interface may be required to obtain realistic results for the Greenland ice sheet (GIS)
|
|
