| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- 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. |
- Cheng, Chee-Wai, et al.
(author)
-
Dosimetric comparison of treatment planning systems in irradiation of breast with tangential fields
- 1997
-
In: International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics. - 0360-3016. ; 38:4, s. 835-842
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- PURPOSE: The objectives of this study are: (1) to investigate the dosimetric differences of the different treatment planning systems (TPS) in breast irradiation with tangential fields, and (2) to study the effect of beam characteristics on dose distributions in tangential breast irradiation with 6 MV linear accelerators from different manufacturers. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Nine commercial and two university-based TPS are evaluated in this study. The computed tomographic scan of three representative patients, labeled as "small", "medium" and "large" based on their respective chest wall separations in the central axis plane (CAX) were used. For each patient, the tangential fields were set up in each TPS. The CAX distribution was optimized separately with lung correction, for each TPS based on the same set of optimization conditions. The isodose distributions in two other off-axis planes, one 6 cm cephalic and the other 6 cm caudal to the CAX plane were also computed. To investigate the effect of beam characteristics on dose distributions, a three-dimensional TPS was used to calculate the isodose distributions for three different linear accelerators, the Varian Clinac 6/100, the Siemens MD2 and the Philips SL/7 for the three patients. In addition, dose distributions obtained with 6 MV X-rays from two different accelerators, the Varian Clinac 6/100 and the Varian 2100C, were compared. RESULTS: For all TPS, the dose distributions in all three planes agreed qualitatively to within +/- 5% for the "small" and the "medium" patients. For the "large" patient, all TPS agreed to within +/- 4% on the CAX plane. The isodose distributions in the caudal plane differed by +/- 5% among all TPS. In the cephalic plane in which the patient separation is much larger than that in the CAX plane, six TPS correctly calculated the dose distribution showing a cold spot in the center of the breast contour. The other five TPS showed that the center of the breast received adequate dose. Isodose distributions for 6 MV X-rays from three different accelerators differed by about +/- 3% for the "small" patient and more than +/- 5% for the "large" patient. For two different 6 MV machines of the same manufacturer, the isodose distribution agreed to within +/- 2% for all three planes for the "large" patient. CONCLUSION: The differences observed among the various TPS in this study were within +/- 5% for both the "small" and the "medium" patients while doses at the hot spot exhibit a larger variation. The large discrepancy observed in the off-axis plane for the "large" patient is largely due to the inability of most TPS to incorporate the collimator angles in the dose calculation. Only six systems involved agreed to within +/- 5% for all three patients in all calculation planes. The difference in dose distributions obtained with three accelerators from different manufacturers is probably due to the difference in beam profiles. On the other hand, the 6 MV X-rays from two different models of linear accelerators from the same manufacturer have similar beam characteristics and the dose distributions are within +/- 2% of each other throughout the breast volume. In general, multi-institutional breast treatment data can be compared within a +/- 5% accuracy.
|
|
| 4. |
- Das, Indra J., et al.
(author)
-
Accelerator beam data commissioning equipment and procedures : report of the TG-106 of the Therapy Physics Committee of the AAPM
- 2008
-
In: Medical physics (Lancaster). - : Wiley. - 0094-2405. ; 35:9, s. 4186-4215
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)abstract
- For commissioning a linear accelerator for clinical use, medical physicists are faced with many challenges including the need for precision, a variety of testing methods, data validation, the lack of standards, and time constraints. Since commissioning beam data are treated as a reference and ultimately used by treatment planning systems, it is vitally important that the collected data are of the highest quality to avoid dosimetric and patient treatment errors that may subsequently lead to a poor radiation outcome. Beam data commissioning should be performed with appropriate knowledge and proper tools and should be independent of the person collecting the data. To achieve this goal, Task Group 106 (TG-106) of the Therapy Physics Committee of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine was formed to review the practical aspects as well as the physics of linear accelerator commissioning. The report provides guidelines and recommendations on the proper selection of phantoms and detectors, setting up of a phantom for data acquisition (both scanning and no-scanning data), procedures for acquiring specific photon and electron beam parameters and methods to reduce measurement errors (<1%), beam data processing and detector size convolution for accurate profiles. The TG-106 also provides a brief.discussion on the emerging trend in Monte Carlo simulation techniques in photon and electron beam commissioning. The procedures described in this report should assist a qualified medical physicist in either measuring a complete set of beam data, or in verifying a subset of data before initial use or for periodic quality assurance measurements. By combining practical experience with theoretical discussion, this document sets a new standard for beam data commissioning.
|
|
| 5. |
- Das, Indra J., et al.
(author)
-
Report of AAPM Task Group 155 : Megavoltage photon beam dosimetry in small fields and non-equilibrium conditions
- 2021
-
In: Medical physics (Lancaster). - : John Wiley & Sons. - 0094-2405 .- 2473-4209. ; 48:10, s. E886-E921
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Small-field dosimetry used in advance treatment technologies poses challenges due to loss of lateral charged particle equilibrium (LCPE), occlusion of the primary photon source, and the limited choice of suitable radiation detectors. These challenges greatly influence dosimetric accuracy. Many high-profile radiation incidents have demonstrated a poor understanding of appropriate methodology for small-field dosimetry. These incidents are a cause for concern because the use of small fields in various specialized radiation treatment techniques continues to grow rapidly. Reference and relative dosimetry in small and composite fields are the subject of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) dosimetry code of practice that has been published as TRS-483 and an AAPM summary publication (IAEA TRS 483; Dosimetry of small static fields used in external beam radiotherapy: An IAEA/AAPM International Code of Practice for reference and relative dose determination, Technical Report Series No. 483; Pal-mans et al., Med Phys 45(11):e1123, 2018). The charge of AAPM task group 155 (TG-155) is to summarize current knowledge on small-field dosimetry and to provide recommendations of best practices for relative dose determination in small megavoltage photon beams. An overview of the issue of LCPE and the changes in photon beam perturbations with decreasing field size is provided. Recommendations are included on appropriate detector systems and measurement methodologies. Existing published data on dosimetric parameters in small photon fields (e.g., percentage depth dose, tissue phantom ratio/tissue maximum ratio, off-axis ratios, and field output factors) together with the necessary perturbation corrections for various detectors are reviewed. A discussion on errors and an uncertainty analysis in measurements is provided. The design of beam models in treatment planning systems to simulate small fields necessitates special attention on the influence of the primary beam source and collimating devices in the computation of energy fluence and dose. The general requirements for fluence and dose calculation engines suitable for modeling dose in small fields are reviewed. Implementations in commercial treatment planning systems vary widely, and the aims of this report are to provide insight for the medical physicist and guidance to developers of beams models for radiotherapy treatment planning systems.
|
|
| 6. |
- Estrada, Karol, et al.
(author)
-
Genome-wide meta-analysis identifies 56 bone mineral density loci and reveals 14 loci associated with risk of fracture.
- 2012
-
In: Nature genetics. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1546-1718 .- 1061-4036. ; 44:5, s. 491-501
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Bone mineral density (BMD) is the most widely used predictor of fracture risk. We performed the largest meta-analysis to date on lumbar spine and femoral neck BMD, including 17 genome-wide association studies and 32,961 individuals of European and east Asian ancestry. We tested the top BMD-associated markers for replication in 50,933 independent subjects and for association with risk of low-trauma fracture in 31,016 individuals with a history of fracture (cases) and 102,444 controls. We identified 56 loci (32 new) associated with BMD at genome-wide significance (P < 5 × 10(-8)). Several of these factors cluster within the RANK-RANKL-OPG, mesenchymal stem cell differentiation, endochondral ossification and Wnt signaling pathways. However, we also discovered loci that were localized to genes not known to have a role in bone biology. Fourteen BMD-associated loci were also associated with fracture risk (P < 5 × 10(-4), Bonferroni corrected), of which six reached P < 5 × 10(-8), including at 18p11.21 (FAM210A), 7q21.3 (SLC25A13), 11q13.2 (LRP5), 4q22.1 (MEPE), 2p16.2 (SPTBN1) and 10q21.1 (DKK1). These findings shed light on the genetic architecture and pathophysiological mechanisms underlying BMD variation and fracture susceptibility.
|
|
| 7. |
- Moayyeri, Alireza, et al.
(author)
-
Genetic determinants of heel bone properties : genome-wide association meta-analysis and replication in the GEFOS/GENOMOS consortium
- 2014
-
In: Human Molecular Genetics. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 0964-6906 .- 1460-2083. ; 23:11, s. 3054-3068
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Quantitative ultrasound of the heel captures heel bone properties that independently predict fracture risk and, with bone mineral density (BMD) assessed by X-ray (DXA), may be convenient alternatives for evaluating osteoporosis and fracture risk. We performed a meta-analysis of genome-wide association (GWA) studies to assess the genetic determinants of heel broadband ultrasound attenuation (BUA; n = 14 260), velocity of sound (VOS; n = 15 514) and BMD (n = 4566) in 13 discovery cohorts. Independent replication involved seven cohorts with GWA data (in silico n = 11 452) and new genotyping in 15 cohorts (de novo n = 24 902). In combined random effects, meta-analysis of the discovery and replication cohorts, nine single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) had genome-wide significant (P < 5 x 10(-8)) associations with heel bone properties. Alongside SNPs within or near previously identified osteoporosis susceptibility genes including ESR1 (6q25.1: rs4869739, rs3020331, rs2982552), SPTBN1 (2p16.2: rs11898505), RSPO3 (6q22.33: rs7741021), WNT16 (7q31.31: rs2908007), DKK1 (10q21.1: rs7902708) and GPATCH1 (19q13.11: rs10416265), we identified a new locus on chromosome 11q14.2 (rs597319 close to TMEM135, a gene recently linked to osteoblastogenesis and longevity) significantly associated with both BUA and VOS (P < 8.23 x 10(-14)). In meta-analyses involving 25 cohorts with up to 14 985 fracture cases, six of 10 SNPs associated with heel bone properties at P < 5 x 10(-6) also had the expected direction of association with any fracture (P < 0.05), including three SNPs with P < 0.005: 6q22.33 (rs7741021), 7q31.31 (rs2908007) and 10q21.1 (rs7902708). In conclusion, this GWA study reveals the effect of several genes common to central DXA-derived BMD and heel ultrasound/DXA measures and points to a new genetic locus with potential implications for better understanding of osteoporosis pathophysiology.
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
