| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- 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.
|
|
| 5. |
- Cossarizza, A., et al.
(författare)
-
Guidelines for the use of flow cytometry and cell sorting in immunological studies (second edition)
- 2019
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Immunology. - : Wiley. - 0014-2980 .- 1521-4141. ; 49:10, s. 1457-1973
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- These guidelines are a consensus work of a considerable number of members of the immunology and flow cytometry community. They provide the theory and key practical aspects of flow cytometry enabling immunologists to avoid the common errors that often undermine immunological data. Notably, there are comprehensive sections of all major immune cell types with helpful Tables detailing phenotypes in murine and human cells. The latest flow cytometry techniques and applications are also described, featuring examples of the data that can be generated and, importantly, how the data can be analysed. Furthermore, there are sections detailing tips, tricks and pitfalls to avoid, all written and peer-reviewed by leading experts in the field, making this an essential research companion.
|
|
| 6. |
- Kristan, M., et al.
(författare)
-
The Eighth Visual Object Tracking VOT2020 Challenge Results
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Computer Vision. - Cham : Springer International Publishing. - 9783030682378 ; , s. 547-601
-
Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)abstract
- The Visual Object Tracking challenge VOT2020 is the eighth annual tracker benchmarking activity organized by the VOT initiative. Results of 58 trackers are presented; many are state-of-the-art trackers published at major computer vision conferences or in journals in the recent years. The VOT2020 challenge was composed of five sub-challenges focusing on different tracking domains: (i) VOT-ST2020 challenge focused on short-term tracking in RGB, (ii) VOT-RT2020 challenge focused on “real-time” short-term tracking in RGB, (iii) VOT-LT2020 focused on long-term tracking namely coping with target disappearance and reappearance, (iv) VOT-RGBT2020 challenge focused on short-term tracking in RGB and thermal imagery and (v) VOT-RGBD2020 challenge focused on long-term tracking in RGB and depth imagery. Only the VOT-ST2020 datasets were refreshed. A significant novelty is introduction of a new VOT short-term tracking evaluation methodology, and introduction of segmentation ground truth in the VOT-ST2020 challenge – bounding boxes will no longer be used in the VOT-ST challenges. A new VOT Python toolkit that implements all these novelites was introduced. Performance of the tested trackers typically by far exceeds standard baselines. The source code for most of the trackers is publicly available from the VOT page. The dataset, the evaluation kit and the results are publicly available at the challenge website (http://votchallenge.net ).
|
|
| 7. |
- Abe, K., et al.
(författare)
-
J-PARC Neutrino Beamline Upgrade Technical Design Report
- 2019
-
Rapport (refereegranskat)abstract
- In this document, technical details of the upgrade plan of the J-PARC neutrino beamline for the extension of the T2K experiment are described. T2K has proposed to accumulate data corresponding to 2×1022 protons-on-target in the next decade, aiming at an initial observation of CP violation with 3σ or higher significance in the case of maximal CP violation. Methods to increase the neutrino beam intensity, which are necessary to achieve the proposed data increase, are described.
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
- Lawrenson, Kate, et al.
(författare)
-
Functional mechanisms underlying pleiotropic risk alleles at the 19p13.1 breast-ovarian cancer susceptibility locus
- 2016
-
Ingår i: Nature Communications. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 2041-1723. ; 7
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- A locus at 19p13 is associated with breast cancer (BC) and ovarian cancer (OC) risk. Here we analyse 438 SNPs in this region in 46,451 BC and 15,438 OC cases, 15,252 BRCA1 mutation carriers and 73,444 controls and identify 13 candidate causal SNPs associated with serous OC (P=9.2 × 10-20), ER-negative BC (P=1.1 × 10-13), BRCA1-associated BC (P=7.7 × 10-16) and triple negative BC (P-diff=2 × 10-5). Genotype-gene expression associations are identified for candidate target genes ANKLE1 (P=2 × 10-3) and ABHD8 (P<2 × 10-3). Chromosome conformation capture identifies interactions between four candidate SNPs and ABHD8, and luciferase assays indicate six risk alleles increased transactivation of the ADHD8 promoter. Targeted deletion of a region containing risk SNP rs56069439 in a putative enhancer induces ANKLE1 downregulation; and mRNA stability assays indicate functional effects for an ANKLE1 3′-UTR SNP. Altogether, these data suggest that multiple SNPs at 19p13 regulate ABHD8 and perhaps ANKLE1 expression, and indicate common mechanisms underlying breast and ovarian cancer risk.
|
|
| 10. |
- Block, Keith I., et al.
(författare)
-
Designing a broad-spectrum integrative approach for cancer prevention and treatment
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Seminars in Cancer Biology. - : Academic Press. - 1044-579X .- 1096-3650. ; 35, s. S276-S304
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Targeted therapies and the consequent adoption of "personalized" oncology have achieved notable successes in some cancers; however, significant problems remain with this approach. Many targeted therapies are highly toxic, costs are extremely high, and most patients experience relapse after a few disease-free months. Relapses arise from genetic heterogeneity in tumors, which harbor therapy-resistant immortalized cells that have adopted alternate and compensatory pathways (i.e., pathways that are not reliant upon the same mechanisms as those which have been targeted). To address these limitations, an international task force of 180 scientists was assembled to explore the concept of a low-toxicity "broadspectrum" therapeutic approach that could simultaneously target many key pathways and mechanisms. Using cancer hallmark phenotypes and the tumor microenvironment to account for the various aspects of relevant cancer biology, interdisciplinary teams reviewed each hallmark area and nominated a wide range of high-priority targets (74 in total) that could be modified to improve patient outcomes. For these targets, corresponding low-toxicity therapeutic approaches were then suggested, many of which were phytochemicals. Proposed actions on each target and all of the approaches were further reviewed for known effects on other hallmark areas and the tumor microenvironment Potential contrary or procarcinogenic effects were found for 3.9% of the relationships between targets and hallmarks, and mixed evidence of complementary and contrary relationships was found for 7.1%. Approximately 67% of the relationships revealed potentially complementary effects, and the remainder had no known relationship. Among the approaches, 1.1% had contrary, 2.8% had mixed and 62.1% had complementary relationships. These results suggest that a broad-spectrum approach should be feasible from a safety standpoint. This novel approach has potential to be relatively inexpensive, it should help us address stages and types of cancer that lack conventional treatment, and it may reduce relapse risks. A proposed agenda for future research is offered. (C) 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
|
|
