| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- 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.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- Tunon, J, et al.
(författare)
-
Interplay between hypercholesterolaemia and inflammation in atherosclerosis: Translating experimental targets into clinical practice
- 2018
-
Ingår i: European journal of preventive cardiology. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 2047-4881 .- 2047-4873. ; 25:9, s. 948-955
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Dyslipidaemia and inflammation are closely interconnected in their contribution to atherosclerosis. In fact, low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-lowering drugs have anti-inflammatory effects. The Canakinumab Antiinflammatory Thrombosis Outcome Study (CANTOS) has shown that interleukin (IL)-1β blockade reduces the incidence of cardiovascular events in patients with previous myocardial infarction and C-reactive protein levels >2 mg/L. These data confirm the connection between lipids and inflammation, as lipids activate the Nod-like receptor protein 3 inflammasome that leads to IL-1β activation. LDL-lowering drugs are the foundation of cardiovascular prevention. Now, the CANTOS trial demonstrates that combining them with IL-1β blockade further decreases the incidence of cardiovascular events. However, both therapies are not at the same level, given the large evidence showing that LDL-lowering drugs reduce cardiovascular risk as opposed to only one randomized trial of IL-1β blockade. In addition, IL-1β blockade has only been studied in patients with C-reactive protein >2 mg/L, while the benefit of LDL-lowering is not restricted to these patients. Also, lipid-lowering drugs are not harmful even at very low ranges of LDL, while anti-inflammatory therapies may confer a higher risk of developing fatal infections and sepsis. In the future, more clinical trials are needed to explore whether targeting other inflammatory molecules, both related and unrelated to the IL-1β pathway, reduces the cardiovascular risk. In this regard, the ongoing trials with methotrexate and colchicine may clarify whether the cardiovascular benefit of IL-1β blockade extends to other anti-inflammatory mechanisms. A positive result would represent a major change in the future treatment of atherosclerosis.
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
