| 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.
|
|
| 2. |
- van den Berg, Leonard H., et al.
(author)
-
Revised Airlie House consensus guidelines for design and implementation of ALS clinical trials
- 2019
-
In: Neurology. - : Wolters Kluwer. - 0028-3878 .- 1526-632X. ; 92:14, s. E1610-E1623
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Objective: To revise the 1999 Airlie House consensus guidelines for the design and implementation of preclinical therapeutic studies and clinical trials in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS).Methods: A consensus committee comprising 140 key members of the international ALS community (ALS researchers, clinicians, patient representatives, research funding representatives, industry, and regulatory agencies) addressed 9 areas of need within ALS research: (1) preclinical studies; (2) biological and phenotypic heterogeneity; (3) outcome measures; (4) disease-modifying and symptomatic interventions; (5) recruitment and retention; (6) biomarkers; (7) clinical trial phases; (8) beyond traditional trial designs; and (9) statistical considerations. Assigned to 1 of 8 sections, committee members generated a draft set of guidelines based on a “background” of developing a (pre)clinical question and a “rationale” outlining the evidence and expert opinion. Following a 2-day, face-to-face workshop at the Airlie House Conference Center, a modified Delphi process was used to develop draft consensus research guidelines, which were subsequently reviewed and modified based on comments from the public. Statistical experts drafted a separate document of statistical considerations (section 9).Results: In this report, we summarize 112 guidelines and their associated backgrounds and rationales. The full list of guidelines, the statistical considerations, and a glossary of terms can be found in data available from Dryad (appendices e-3–e-5, doi.org/10.5061/dryad.32q9q5d). The authors prioritized 15 guidelines with the greatest potential to improve ALS clinical research.Conclusion: The revised Airlie House ALS Clinical Trials Consensus Guidelines should serve to improve clinical trial design and accelerate the development of effective treatments for patients with ALS.
|
|
