| 1. |
- Abdoullaye, Doukary, et al.
(author)
-
Permanent genetic resources added to molecular ecology resources database 1 August 2009 - 30 September 2009
- 2010
-
In: Molecular Ecology Resources. - : Wiley. - 1755-098X .- 1755-0998. ; 10:1, s. 232-236
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- This article documents the addition of 238 microsatellite marker loci and 72 pairs of Single Nucleotide Polymorphism (SNP) sequencing primers to the Molecular Ecology Resources Database. Loci were developed for the following species: Adelges tsugae, Artemisia tridentata, Astroides calycularis, Azorella selago, Botryllus schlosseri, Botrylloides violaceus, Cardiocrinum cordatum var. glehnii, Campylopterus curvipennis, Colocasia esculenta, Cynomys ludovicianus, Cynomys leucurus, Cynomys gunnisoni, Epinephelus coioides, Eunicella singularis, Gammarus pulex, Homoeosoma nebulella, Hyla squirella, Lateolabrax japonicus, Mastomys erythroleucus, Pararge aegeria, Pardosa sierra, Phoenicopterus ruber ruber and Silene latifolia. These loci were cross-tested on the following species: Adelges abietis, Adelges cooleyi, Adelges piceae, Pineus pini, Pineus strobi, Tubastrea micrantha, three other Tubastrea species, Botrylloides fuscus, Botrylloides simodensis, Campylopterus hemileucurus, Campylopterus rufus, Campylopterus largipennis, Campylopterus villaviscensio, Phaethornis longuemareus, Florisuga mellivora, Lampornis amethystinus, Amazilia cyanocephala, Archilochus colubris, Epinephelus lanceolatus, Epinephelus fuscoguttatus, Symbiodinium temperate-A clade, Gammarus fossarum, Gammarus roeselii, Dikerogammarus villosus and Limnomysis benedeni. This article also documents the addition of 72 sequencing primer pairs and 52 allele specific primers for Neophocaena phocaenoides.
|
|
| 2. |
- Gaillard, Francois, et al.
(author)
-
Use of computed tomography assessed kidney length to predict split renal GFR in living kidney donors
- 2017
-
In: European Radiology. - : SPRINGER. - 0938-7994 .- 1432-1084. ; 27:2, s. 651-659
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Screening of living kidney donors may require scintigraphy to split glomerular filtration rate (GFR). To determine the usefulness of computed tomography (CT) to split GFR, we compared scintigraphy-split GFR to CT-split GFR. We evaluated CT-split GFR as a screening test to detect scintigraphy-split GFR lower than 40 mL/min/1.73 m(2)/kidney. This was a monocentric retrospective study on 346 potential living donors who had GFR measurement, renal scintigraphy, and CT. We predicted GFR for each kidney by splitting GFR using the following formula: Volume-split GFR for a given kidney = measured GFR*[volume of this kidney/(volume of this kidney + volume of the opposite kidney)]. The same formula was used for length-split GFR. We compared length- and volume-split GFR to scintigraphy-split GFR at donation and with a 4-year follow-up. A better correlation was observed between length-split GFR and scintigraphy-split GFR (r = 0.92) than between volume-split GFR and scintigraphy-split GFR (r = 0.89). A length-split GFR threshold of 45 mL/min/1.73 m(2)/kidney had a sensitivity of 100 % and a specificity of 75 % to detect scintigraphy-split GFR less than 40 mL/min/1.73 m(2)/kidney. Both techniques with their respective thresholds detected living donors with similar eGFR evolution during follow-up. Length-split GFR can be used to detect patients requiring scintigraphy. aEuro cent Excellent correlation between kidney length and scintigraphy predicted GFR aEuro cent Kidney length screening detects all donors with GFR lower than 40 mL/min/1.73 m (2) aEuro cent Kidney length screening can replace scintigraphy screening.
|
|
| 3. |
- 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.
|
|
