| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 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.
|
|
| 4. |
- Jochum, K. P., et al.
(author)
-
MPI-DING reference glasses for in situ microanalysis: New reference values for element concentrations and isotope ratios
- 2006
-
In: Geochemistry Geophysics Geosystems. - 1525-2027. ; 7:15 Febr
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- [1] We present new analytical data of major and trace elements for the geological MPI-DING glasses KL2-G, ML3B-G, StHs6/80-G, GOR128-G, GOR132-G, BM90/21-G, T1-G, and ATHO-G. Different analytical methods were used to obtain a large spectrum of major and trace element data, in particular, EPMA, SIMS, LA-ICPMS, and isotope dilution by TIMS and ICPMS. Altogether, more than 60 qualified geochemical laboratories worldwide contributed to the analyses, allowing us to present new reference and information values and their uncertainties ( at 95% confidence level) for up to 74 elements. We complied with the recommendations for the certification of geological reference materials by the International Association of Geoanalysts (IAG). The reference values were derived from the results of 16 independent techniques, including definitive ( isotope dilution) and comparative bulk ( e. g., INAA, ICPMS, SSMS) and microanalytical ( e. g., LA-ICPMS, SIMS, EPMA) methods. Agreement between two or more independent methods and the use of definitive methods provided traceability to the fullest extent possible. We also present new and recently published data for the isotopic compositions of H, B, Li, O, Ca, Sr, Nd, Hf, and Pb. The results were mainly obtained by high-precision bulk techniques, such as TIMS and MC-ICPMS. In addition, LA-ICPMS and SIMS isotope data of B, Li, and Pb are presented.
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- de la Vega, Maria Pagnon, et al.
(author)
-
The Uppsala APP deletion causes early onset autosomal dominant Alzheimer's disease by altering APP processing and increasing amyloid beta fibril formation
- 2021
-
In: Science Translational Medicine. - : American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). - 1946-6234 .- 1946-6242. ; 13:606
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Point mutations in the amyloid precursor protein gene (APP) cause familial Alzheimer's disease (AD) by increasing generation or altering conformation of amyloid beta (A beta). Here, we describe the Uppsala APP mutation (Delta 690-695), the first reported deletion causing autosomal dominant AD. Affected individuals have an age at symptom onset in their early forties and suffer from a rapidly progressing disease course. Symptoms and biomarkers are typical of AD, with the exception of normal cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) A beta 42 and only slightly pathological amyloid-positron emission tomography signals. Mass spectrometry and Western blot analyses of patient CSF and media from experimental cell cultures indicate that the Uppsala APP mutation alters APP processing by increasing beta-secretase cleavage and affecting alpha-secretase cleavage. Furthermore, in vitro aggregation studies and analyses of patient brain tissue samples indicate that the longer form of mutated A beta, A beta Upp1-42(Delta 19-24), accelerates the formation of fibrils with unique polymorphs and their deposition into amyloid plaques in the affected brain.
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
