| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- 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.
|
|
| 4. |
-
- 2019
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)
|
|
| 5. |
- Aad, G, et al.
(author)
-
- 2015
-
swepub:Mat__t
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
- Shu, Xiang, et al.
(author)
-
Large-scale Integrated Analysis of Genetics and Metabolomic Data Reveals Potential Links Between Lipids and Colorectal Cancer Risk
- 2022
-
In: Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention. - : American Association for Cancer Research. - 1055-9965 .- 1538-7755. ; 31:6, s. 1216-1226
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background: The etiology of colorectal cancer is not fully understood.Methods: Using genetic variants and metabolomics data including 217 metabolites from the Framingham Heart Study (n = 1,357), we built genetic prediction models for circulating metabolites. Models with prediction R2 > 0.01 (Nmetabolite = 58) were applied to predict levels of metabolites in two large consortia with a combined sample size of approximately 46,300 cases and 59,200 controls of European and approximately 21,700 cases and 47,400 controls of East Asian (EA) descent. Genetically predicted levels of metabolites were evaluated for their associations with colorectal cancer risk in logistic regressions within each racial group, after which the results were combined by meta-analysis.Results: Of the 58 metabolites tested, 24 metabolites were significantly associated with colorectal cancer risk [Benjamini-Hochberg FDR (BH-FDR) < 0.05] in the European population (ORs ranged from 0.91 to 1.06; P values ranged from 0.02 to 6.4 × 10-8). Twenty one of the 24 associations were replicated in the EA population (ORs ranged from 0.26 to 1.69, BH-FDR < 0.05). In addition, the genetically predicted levels of C16:0 cholesteryl ester was significantly associated with colorectal cancer risk in the EA population only (OREA: 1.94, 95% CI, 1.60−2.36, P = 2.6 × 10-11; OREUR: 1.01, 95% CI, 0.99−1.04, P = 0.3). Nineteen of the 25 metabolites were glycerophospholipids and triacylglycerols (TAG). Eighteen associations exhibited significant heterogeneity between the two racial groups (PEUR-EA-Het < 0.005), which were more strongly associated in the EA population. This integrative study suggested a potential role of lipids, especially certain glycerophospholipids and TAGs, in the etiology of colorectal cancer.Conclusions: This study identified potential novel risk biomarkers for colorectal cancer by integrating genetics and circulating metabolomics data.Impact: The identified metabolites could be developed into new tools for risk assessment of colorectal cancer in both European and EA populations.
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
