| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- 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.
|
|
| 3. |
- Borgegard, Tomas, et al.
(författare)
-
Alzheimers Disease: Presenilin 2-Sparing gamma-Secretase Inhibition Is a Tolerable A beta Peptide-Lowering Strategy
- 2012
-
Ingår i: Journal of Neuroscience. - : Society for Neuroscience. - 0270-6474 .- 1529-2401. ; 32:48, s. 17297-17305
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- gamma-Secretase inhibition represents a major therapeutic strategy for lowering amyloid beta (A beta) peptide production in Alzheimers disease (AD). Progress toward clinical use of gamma-secretase inhibitors has, however, been hampered due to mechanism-based adverse events, primarily related to impairment of Notch signaling. The gamma-secretase inhibitor MRK-560 represents an exception as it is largely tolerable in vivo despite displaying only a small selectivity between A beta production and Notch signaling in vitro. In exploring the molecular basis for the observed tolerability, we show that MRK-560 displays a strong preference for the presenilin 1(PS1) over PS2 subclass of gamma-secretases and is tolerable in wild-type mice but causes dose-dependent Notch-related side effect in PS2-deficient mice at drug exposure levels resulting in a substantial decrease in brain A beta levels. This demonstrates that PS2 plays an important role in mediating essential Notch signaling in several peripheral organs during pharmacological inhibition of PS1 and provide preclinical in vivo proof of concept for PS2-sparing inhibition as a novel, tolerable and efficacious gamma-secretase targeting strategy for AD.
|
|
| 4. |
- van Bodegraven, Eduard A., et al.
(författare)
-
Minimally invasive robot-assisted and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy in a pan-European registry a retrospective cohort study
- 2024
-
Ingår i: International Journal of Surgery. - : LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS. - 1743-9191 .- 1743-9159. ; 110:6, s. 3554-3561
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: International guidelines recommend monitoring the use and outcome of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery (MIPS). However, data from prospective international audits on minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) are lacking. This study examined the use and outcome of robot-assisted (RDP) and laparoscopic (LDP) distal pancreatectomy in the E-MIPS registry. Patients and methods: Post-hoc analysis in a prospective audit on MIPS, including consecutive patients undergoing MIDP in 83 centers from 19 European countries (01-01-2019/31-12-2021). Primary outcomes included intraoperative events (grade 1: excessive blood loss, grade 2: conversion/change in operation, grade 3: intraoperative death), major morbidity, and in-hospital/30-day mortality. Multivariable logistic regression analyses identified high-risk groups for intraoperative events. RDP and LDP were compared in the total cohort and high-risk groups. Results: Overall, 1672 patients undergoing MIDP were included; 606 (36.2%) RDP and 1066 (63.8%) LDP. The annual use of RDP increased from 30.5% to 42.6% (P<0.001). RDP was associated with fewer grade 2 intraoperative events compared with LDP (9.6% vs. 16.8%, P<0.001), with longer operating time (238 vs. 201 min, P<0.001). No significant differences were observed between RDP and LDP regarding major morbidity (23.4% vs. 25.9%, P=0.264) and in-hospital/30-day mortality (0.3% vs. 0.8%, P=0.344). Three high-risk groups were identified; BMI greater than 25 kg/m(2), previous abdominal surgery, and vascular involvement. In each group, RDP was associated with fewer conversions and longer operative times. Conclusion: This European registry-based study demonstrated favorable outcomes for MIDP, with mortality rates below 1%. LDP remains the predominant approach, whereas the use of RDP is increasing. RDP was associated with fewer conversions and longer operative time, including in high-risk subgroups. Future randomized trials should confirm these findings and assess cost differences.
|
|
