1. |
- Beal, Jacob, et al.
(author)
-
Robust estimation of bacterial cell count from optical density
- 2020
-
In: Communications Biology. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 2399-3642. ; 3:1
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Optical density (OD) is widely used to estimate the density of cells in liquid culture, but cannot be compared between instruments without a standardized calibration protocol and is challenging to relate to actual cell count. We address this with an interlaboratory study comparing three simple, low-cost, and highly accessible OD calibration protocols across 244 laboratories, applied to eight strains of constitutive GFP-expressing E. coli. Based on our results, we recommend calibrating OD to estimated cell count using serial dilution of silica microspheres, which produces highly precise calibration (95.5% of residuals <1.2-fold), is easily assessed for quality control, also assesses instrument effective linear range, and can be combined with fluorescence calibration to obtain units of Molecules of Equivalent Fluorescein (MEFL) per cell, allowing direct comparison and data fusion with flow cytometry measurements: in our study, fluorescence per cell measurements showed only a 1.07-fold mean difference between plate reader and flow cytometry data.
|
|
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.
|
|
3. |
- Weinstein, John N., et al.
(author)
-
The cancer genome atlas pan-cancer analysis project
- 2013
-
In: Nature Genetics. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1546-1718 .- 1061-4036. ; 45:10, s. 1113-1120
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) Research Network has profiled and analyzed large numbers of human tumors to discover molecular aberrations at the DNA, RNA, protein and epigenetic levels. The resulting rich data provide a major opportunity to develop an integrated picture of commonalities, differences and emergent themes across tumor lineages. The Pan-Cancer initiative compares the first 12 tumor types profiled by TCGA. Analysis of the molecular aberrations and their functional roles across tumor types will teach us how to extend therapies effective in one cancer type to others with a similar genomic profile. © 2013 Nature America, Inc. All rights reserved.
|
|
4. |
- Yung, Marcus, et al.
(author)
-
Is there a u-shaped relationship between load levels and fatigue and recovery? : An examination of possible mechanisms
- 2023
-
In: Ergonomics. - : Informa UK Limited. - 0014-0139 .- 1366-5847. ; , s. 1-16
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- In a previous study, an unexpected u-shaped relationship was observed between load level andfatigue/recovery responses. Moderate load levels resulted in lower perceived discomfort, pain,and fatigue, and shorter recovery times compared to either low or high load levels. Thisphenomenon has been reported in other studies, but no article has examined the possiblemechanisms that might explain this u-shaped relationship. In this paper, we re-examined thepreviously published data and found that the phenomenon does not appear to be due to theexperimental artefact; the u-shape may be due to unexpectedly lower fatigue effects at moderateloads, and higher fatigue effects at lower loads. We then conducted a literature review andidentified several possible physiological, perceptual, and biomechanical explanatory mechanisms.No single mechanism explains the entirety of the phenomenon. Further research is needed onthe relationship between work exposures, fatigue, and recovery, and the mechanisms related tothe u-shaped relationship.Practitioner summary: We examine a previously observed u-shaped relationship between loadlevel and fatigue/recovery, where moderate force resulted in lower perceived fatigue andshorter recovery times. A u-shaped fatigue response suggests that simply minimising load levelsmight not be an optimal approach to reduce the risk of workplace injuries.
|
|