| 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.
|
|
| 4. |
- Cheng, Tuck Seng, et al.
(author)
-
Circulating free insulin-like growth factor-I and prostate cancer : a case-control study nested in the European prospective investigation into cancer and nutrition
- 2024
-
In: BMC Cancer. - : BioMed Central (BMC). - 1471-2407. ; 24:1
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Circulating total insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF-I) is an established risk factor for prostate cancer. However, only a small proportion of circulating IGF-I is free or readily dissociable from IGF-binding proteins (its bioavailable form), and few studies have investigated the association of circulating free IGF-I with prostate cancer risk.METHODS: We analyzed data from 767 prostate cancer cases and 767 matched controls nested within the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition cohort, with an average of 14-years (interquartile range = 2.9) follow-up. Matching variables were study center, length of follow-up, age, and time of day and fasting duration at blood collection. Circulating free IGF-I concentration was measured in serum samples collected at recruitment visit (mean age 55 years old; standard deviation = 7.1) using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Conditional logistic regressions were performed to examine the associations of free IGF-I with risk of prostate cancer overall and subdivided by time to diagnosis (≤ 14 and > 14 years), and tumor characteristics.RESULTS: Circulating free IGF-I concentrations (in fourths and as a continuous variable) were not associated with prostate cancer risk overall (odds ratio [OR] = 1.00 per 0.1 nmol/L increment, 95% CI: 0.99, 1.02) or by time to diagnosis, or with prostate cancer subtypes, including tumor stage and histological grade.CONCLUSIONS: Estimated circulating free IGF-I was not associated with prostate cancer risk. Further research may consider other assay methods that estimate bioavailable IGF-I to provide more insight into the well-substantiated association between circulating total IGF-I and subsequent prostate cancer risk.
|
|
