| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Thomas, HS, et al.
(author)
-
- 2019
-
swepub:Mat__t
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- 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.
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
- Applegate, K. E., et al.
(author)
-
Individual response of humans to ionising radiation : governing factors and importance for radiological protection
- 2020
-
In: Radiation and Environmental Biophysics. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0301-634X .- 1432-2099. ; 59:2, s. 185-209
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Tissue reactions and stochastic effects after exposure to ionising radiation are variable between individuals but the factors and mechanisms governing individual responses are not well understood. Individual responses can be measured at different levels of biological organization and using different endpoints following varying doses of radiation, including: cancers, non-cancer diseases and mortality in the whole organism; normal tissue reactions after exposures; and, cellular endpoints such as chromosomal damage and molecular alterations. There is no doubt that many factors influence the responses of people to radiation to different degrees. In addition to the obvious general factors of radiation quality, dose, dose rate and the tissue (sub)volume irradiated, recognized and potential determining factors include age, sex, life style (e.g., smoking, diet, possibly body mass index), environmental factors, genetics and epigenetics, stochastic distribution of cellular events, and systemic comorbidities such as diabetes or viral infections. Genetic factors are commonly thought to be a substantial contributor to individual response to radiation. Apart from a small number of rare monogenic diseases such as ataxia telangiectasia, the inheritance of an abnormally responsive phenotype among a population of healthy individuals does not follow a classical Mendelian inheritance pattern. Rather it is considered to be a multi-factorial, complex trait.
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
