| 1. |
- 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.
|
|
| 3. |
- Laugwitz, Lucia, et al.
(author)
-
Newborn screening in metachromatic leukodystrophy – European consensus-based recommendations on clinical management
- 2024
-
In: European Journal of Paediatric Neurology. - 1090-3798. ; 49, s. 141-154
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Introduction: Metachromatic leukodystrophy (MLD) is a rare autosomal recessive lysosomal storage disorder resulting from arylsulfatase A enzyme deficiency, leading to toxic sulfatide accumulation. As a result affected individuals exhibit progressive neurodegeneration. Treatments such as hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) and gene therapy are effective when administered pre-symptomatically. Newborn screening (NBS) for MLD has recently been shown to be technically feasible and is indicated because of available treatment options. However, there is a lack of guidance on how to monitor and manage identified cases. This study aims to establish consensus among international experts in MLD and patient advocates on clinical management for NBS-identified MLD cases. Methods: A real-time Delphi procedure using eDELPHI software with 22 experts in MLD was performed. Questions, based on a literature review and workshops, were answered during a seven-week period. Three levels of consensus were defined: A) 100%, B) 75–99%, and C) 50–74% or >75% but >25% neutral votes. Recommendations were categorized by agreement level, from strongly recommended to suggested. Patient advocates participated in discussions and were involved in the final consensus. Results: The study presents 57 statements guiding clinical management of NBS-identified MLD patients. Key recommendations include timely communication by MLD experts with identified families, treating early-onset MLD with gene therapy and late-onset MLD with HSCT, as well as pre-treatment monitoring schemes. Specific knowledge gaps were identified, urging prioritized research for future evidence-based guidelines. Discussion: Consensus-based recommendations for NBS in MLD will enhance harmonized management and facilitate integration in national screening programs. Structured data collection and monitoring of screening programs are crucial for evidence generation and future guideline development. Involving patient representatives in the development of recommendations seems essential for NBS programs.
|
|
