| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Klionsky, Daniel J., et al.
(författare)
-
Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy in higher eukaryotes
- 2008
-
Ingår i: Autophagy. - : Landes Bioscience. - 1554-8627 .- 1554-8635. ; 4:2, s. 151-175
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Research in autophagy continues to accelerate,1 and as a result many new scientists are entering the field. Accordingly, it is important to establish a standard set of criteria for monitoring macroautophagy in different organisms. Recent reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose.2,3 There are many useful and convenient methods that can be used to monitor macroautophagy in yeast, but relatively few in other model systems, and there is much confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure macroautophagy in higher eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers of autophagosomes versus those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway; thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from fully functional autophagy that includes delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of the methods that can be used by investigators who are attempting to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as by reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that investigate these processes. This set of guidelines is 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 verify an autophagic response.
|
|
| 3. |
- Carvalho, Marcelo, et al.
(författare)
-
Analysis of a set of missense, frameshift, and in-frame deletion variants of BRCA1
- 2009
-
Ingår i: Mutation research. - : Elsevier BV. - 0027-5107 .- 1873-135X .- 1879-2871. ; 660:1-2, s. 1-11
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Germline mutations that inactivate BRCA1 are responsible for breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility. One possible outcome of genetic testing for BRCA1 is the finding of a genetic variant of uncertain significance for which there is no information regarding its cancer association. This outcome leads to problems in risk assessment, counseling and preventive care. The purpose of the present study was to functionally evaluate seven unclassified variants of BRCA1 including a genomic deletion that leads to the in-frame loss of exons 16/17 (Delta exons 16/17) in the mRNA, an insertion that leads to a frameshift and an extended carboxy-terminus (5673insC), and five missense variants (K1487R, S1613C, M1652I, Q1826H and V1833M). We analyzed the variants using a functional assay based on the transcription activation property of BRCA1 combined with supervised learning computational models. Functional analysis indicated that variants S1613C, Q1826H, and M1652I are likely to be neutral, whereas variants V1833M, Delta exons 16/17, and 5673insC are likely to represent deleterious variants. In agreement with the functional analysis, the results of the computational analysis also indicated that the latter three variants are likely to be deleterious. Taken together, a combined approach of functional and bioinformatics analysis, plus structural modeling, can be utilized to obtain valuable information pertaining to the effect of a rare variant on the structure and function of BRCA1. Such information can, in turn, aid in the classification of BRCA1 variants for which there is a lack of genetic information needed to provide reliable risk assessment.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Dahl, R., et al.
(författare)
-
Efficacy and safety of sublingual immunotherapy with grass allergen tablets for seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis
- 2006
-
Ingår i: J Allergy Clin Immunol.. ; 118:2
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Allergen immunotherapy (desensitization) by injection is effective for seasonal allergic rhinitis and has been shown to induce long-term disease remission. The sublingual route also has potential, although definitive evidence from large randomized controlled trials has been lacking. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to confirm the efficacy of a rapidly dissolving grass allergen tablet (GRAZAX, ALK-Abello, Horsholm, Denmark) compared with placebo in patients with seasonal rhinoconjunctivitis. METHODS: A longitudinal, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study that included 51 centers from 8 countries. Subjects were randomized (1:1) to receive a grass allergen tablet or placebo once daily. A total of 634 subjects with a history of grass pollen-induced rhinoconjunctivitis for at least 2 years and confirmation of IgE sensitivity (positive skin prick test and serum-specific IgE) were included in the study. Subjects commenced treatment at least 16 weeks before the grass pollen season, and treatment was continued throughout the entire season. RESULTS: The primary efficacy analysis showed a reduction of 30% in rhinoconjunctivitis symptom score (P < .0001) and a reduction of 38% in rhinoconjunctivitis medication score (P < .0001) compared with placebo. Side effects mainly comprised mild itching and swelling in the mouth that was in general well tolerated and led to treatment withdrawal in less than 4% of participants. There were no serious local side effects and no severe systemic adverse events. CONCLUSION: Sublingual immunotherapy with grass allergen tablets was effective in grass pollen-induced rhinoconjunctivitis. The tablet was well tolerated with minor local side effects. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The grass allergen tablet represents a safe alternative to injection immunotherapy suitable for home use.
|
|
| 6. |
- Serruys, Patrick W., et al.
(författare)
-
Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary-artery bypass grafting for severe coronary artery disease
- 2009
-
Ingår i: New England Journal of Medicine. - 0028-4793 .- 1533-4406. ; 360:10, s. 961-972
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) involving drug-eluting stents is increasingly used to treat complex coronary artery disease, although coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG) has been the treatment of choice historically. Our trial compared PCI and CABG for treating patients with previously untreated three-vessel or left main coronary artery disease (or both). METHODS: We randomly assigned 1800 patients with three-vessel or left main coronary artery disease to undergo CABG or PCI (in a 1:1 ratio). For all these patients, the local cardiac surgeon and interventional cardiologist determined that equivalent anatomical revascularization could be achieved with either treatment. A noninferiority comparison of the two groups was performed for the primary end point--a major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular event (i.e., death from any cause, stroke, myocardial infarction, or repeat revascularization) during the 12-month period after randomization. Patients for whom only one of the two treatment options would be beneficial, because of anatomical features or clinical conditions, were entered into a parallel, nested CABG or PCI registry. RESULTS: Most of the preoperative characteristics were similar in the two groups. Rates of major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events at 12 months were significantly higher in the PCI group (17.8%, vs. 12.4% for CABG; P=0.002), in large part because of an increased rate of repeat revascularization (13.5% vs. 5.9%, P<0.001); as a result, the criterion for noninferiority was not met. At 12 months, the rates of death and myocardial infarction were similar between the two groups; stroke was significantly more likely to occur with CABG (2.2%, vs. 0.6% with PCI; P=0.003). CONCLUSIONS: CABG remains the standard of care for patients with three-vessel or left main coronary artery disease, since the use of CABG, as compared with PCI, resulted in lower rates of the combined end point of major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events at 1 year. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00114972.)
|
|
