| 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. |
- Livesey, Geoffrey, et al.
(författare)
-
Dietary Glycemic Index and Load and the Risk of Type 2 Diabetes : A Systematic Review and Updated Meta-Analyses of Prospective Cohort Studies
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Nutrients. - : MDPI AG. - 2072-6643. ; 11:6
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Published meta-analyses indicate significant but inconsistent incident type-2 diabetes(T2D)-dietary glycemic index (GI) and glycemic load (GL) risk ratios or risk relations (RR). It is nowover a decade ago that a published meta-analysis used a predefined standard to identify validstudies. Considering valid studies only, and using random effects dose-response meta-analysis(DRM) while withdrawing spurious results (p < 0.05), we ascertained whether these relationswould support nutrition guidance, specifically for an RR > 1.20 with a lower 95% confidence limit>1.10 across typical intakes (approximately 10th to 90th percentiles of population intakes). Thecombined T2D-GI RR was 1.27 (1.15-1.40) (p < 0.001, n = 10 studies) per 10 units GI, while that forthe T2D-GL RR was 1.26 (1.15-1.37) (p < 0.001, n = 15) per 80 g/d GL in a 2000 kcal (8400 kJ) diet.The corresponding global DRM using restricted cubic splines were 1.87 (1.56-2.25) (p < 0.001, n =10) and 1.89 (1.66-2.16) (p < 0.001, n = 15) from 47.6 to 76.1 units GI and 73 to 257 g/d GL in a 2000kcal diet, respectively. In conclusion, among adults initially in good health, diets higher in GI or GLwere robustly associated with incident T2D. Together with mechanistic and other data, thissupports that consideration should be given to these dietary risk factors in nutrition advice.Concerning the public health relevance at the global level, our evidence indicates that GI and GLare substantial food markers predicting the development of T2D worldwide, for persons ofEuropean ancestry and of East Asian ancestry.
|
|
| 3. |
- Livesey, Geoffrey, et al.
(författare)
-
Dietary Glycemic Index and Load and the Risk of Type 2 Diabetes : Assessment of Causal Relations
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Nutrients. - : MDPI AG. - 2072-6643. ; 11:6
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- While dietary factors are important modifiable risk factors for type 2 diabetes (T2D), the causal role of carbohydrate quality in nutrition remains controversial. Dietary glycemic index (GI) and glycemic load (GL) have been examined in relation to the risk of T2D in multiple prospective cohort studies. Previous meta-analyses indicate significant relations but consideration of causality has been minimal. Here, the results of our recent meta-analyses of prospective cohort studies of 4 to 26-y follow-up are interpreted in the context of the nine Bradford-Hill criteria for causality, that is: (1) Strength of Association, (2) Consistency, (3) Specificity, (4) Temporality, (5) Biological Gradient, (6) Plausibility, (7) Experimental evidence, (8) Analogy, and (9) Coherence. These criteria necessitated referral to a body of literature wider than prospective cohort studies alone, especially in criteria 6 to 9. In this analysis, all nine of the Hill's criteria were met for GI and GL indicating that we can be confident of a role for GI and GL as causal factors contributing to incident T2D. In addition, neither dietary fiber nor cereal fiber nor wholegrain were found to be reliable or effective surrogate measures of GI or GL. Finally, our cost-benefit analysis suggests food and nutrition advice favors lower GI or GL and would produce significant potential cost savings in national healthcare budgets. The high confidence in causal associations for incident T2D is sufficient to consider inclusion of GI and GL in food and nutrient-based recommendations.
|
|
