| 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. |
- Grigorenko, Elena L., et al.
(author)
-
Aggressive behaviour, related conduct problems, and variation in genes affecting dopamine turnover
- 2010
-
In: Aggressive Behavior. - : Wiley. - 0096-140X .- 1098-2337. ; 36:3, s. 158-176
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- A number of dopamine-related genes have been implicated in the etiology of violent behavior and conduct problems. Of these genes, the ones that code for the enzymes that influence the turnover of dopamine (DA) have received the most attention. In this study, we investigated 12 genetic polymorphisms in four genes involved with DA functioning (COMT, MAOA and MAOB, and DβH) in 179 incarcerated male Russian adolescents and two groups of matched controls: boys without criminal records referred to by their teachers as (a) “troubled-behavior-free” boys, n=182; and (b) “troubled-behavior” boys, n=60. The participants were classified as (1) being incarcerated or not, (2) having the DSM-IV diagnosis of conduct disorder (CD) or not, and (3) having committed violent or nonviolent crimes (for the incarcerated individuals only). The findings indicate that, although no single genetic variant in any of the four genes differentiated individuals in the investigated groups, various linear combinations (i.e., haplotypes) and nonlinear combinations (i.e., interactions between variants within and across genes) of genetic variants resulted in informative and robust classifications for two of the three groupings. These combinations of genetic variants differentiated individuals in incarceration vs. nonincarcerated and CD vs. no-CD groups; no informative combinations were established consistently for the grouping by crime within the incarcerated individuals. This study underscores the importance of considering multiple rather than single markers within candidate genes and their additive and interactive combinations, both with themselves and with nongenetic indicators, while attempting to understand the genetic background of such complex behaviors as serious conduct problems.
|
|
