| 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. |
- Holm, Patur M., et al.
(författare)
-
The Effects of Different Management Strategies or Rehabilitation Approaches on Knee Joint Structural and Molecular Biomarkers Following Traumatic Knee Injury : A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials for the OPTIKNEE Consensus
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy. - : Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy (JOSPT). - 0190-6011 .- 1938-1344. ; 53:4, s. 172-193
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVE: To summarize the effectiveness of management strategies and rehabilitation approaches for knee joint structural and molecular biomarker outcomes following anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) and/or meniscal tear. DESIGN: Intervention systematic review. LITERATURE SEARCH: We searched the MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and SPORTDiscus databases from their inception up to November 3, 2021. STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effectiveness of management strategies or rehabilitation approaches for structural/molecular biomarkers of knee joint health following ACL and/or meniscal tear. DATA SYNTHESIS: We included 5 RCTs (9 papers) with primary ACL tear (n = 365). Two RCTs compared initial management strategies (rehabilitation plus early vs optional delayed ACL surgery), reporting on structural biomarkers (radiographic osteoarthritis, cartilage thickness, meniscal damage) in 5 papers and molecular biomarkers (inflammation, cartilage turnover) in 1 paper. Three RCTs compared different post-ACL reconstruction (ACLR) rehabilitation approaches (high vs low intensity plyometric exercises, accelerated vs nonaccelerated rehabilitation, continuous passive vs active motion), reporting on structural biomarkers (joint space narrowing) in 1 paper and molecular biomarkers (inflammation, cartilage turnover) in 2 papers. RESULTS: There were no differences in structural or molecular biomarkers between post-ACLR rehabilitation approaches. One RCT comparing initial management strategies demonstrated that rehabilitation plus early ACLR was associated with greater patellofemoral cartilage thinning, elevated inflammatory cytokine response, and reduced incidence of medial meniscal damage over 5 years compared to rehabilitation with no/delayed ACLR. CONCLUSION: Very low-certainty evidence suggests that different initial management strategies (rehabilitation plus early vs optional delayed ACL surgery) but not postoperative rehabilitation approaches may influence the incidence of meniscal damage, patellofemoral cartilage loss and cytokine concentrations over 5 years post-ACL tear.
|
|
