| 1. |
- Aad, G, et al.
(author)
-
- 2015
-
swepub:Mat__t
|
|
| 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. |
- Klionsky, Daniel J., et al.
(author)
-
Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy in higher eukaryotes
- 2008
-
In: Autophagy. - : Landes Bioscience. - 1554-8627 .- 1554-8635. ; 4:2, s. 151-175
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Research in autophagy continues to accelerate,1 and as a result many new scientists are entering the field. Accordingly, it is important to establish a standard set of criteria for monitoring macroautophagy in different organisms. Recent reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose.2,3 There are many useful and convenient methods that can be used to monitor macroautophagy in yeast, but relatively few in other model systems, and there is much confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure macroautophagy in higher eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers of autophagosomes versus those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway; thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from fully functional autophagy that includes delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of the methods that can be used by investigators who are attempting to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as by reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that investigate these processes. This set of guidelines is 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 verify an autophagic response.
|
|
| 4. |
- Halldórsson, Sæmundur A., et al.
(author)
-
Petrology and geochemistry of the 2014–2015 Holuhraun eruption, central Iceland : compositional and mineralogical characteristics, temporal variability and magma storage
- 2018
-
In: Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0010-7999 .- 1432-0967. ; 173:8
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The 2014–2015 Holuhraun fissure eruption provided a rare opportunity to study in detail the magmatic processes and magma plumbing system dynamics during a 6-month-long, moderate- to large-volume basaltic fissure eruption. In this contribution, we present a comprehensive dataset, including major and trace elements of whole-rock and glassy tephra samples, mineral chemistry, and radiogenic and oxygen isotope analyses from an extensive set of samples (n = 62) that were collected systematically in several field campaigns throughout the entire eruptive period. We also present the first detailed chemical and isotopic characterization of magmatic sulfides from Iceland. In conjunction with a unique set of geophysical data, our approach provides a detailed temporal and spatial resolution of magmatic processes before and during this eruption. The 2014–2015 Holuhraun magma is compositionally indistinguishable from recent basalts erupted from the Bárðarbunga volcanic system, consistent with seismic observations for magma ascent close to the Bárðarbunga central volcano, followed by dyke propagation to the Holuhraun eruption site. Whole-rock elemental and isotopic compositions are remarkably constant throughout the eruption. Moreover, the inferred depth of the magma reservoir tapped during the eruption is consistently 8 ± 5 km, in agreement with geodetic observations and melt inclusion entrapment pressures, but inconsistent with vertically extensive multi-tiered magma storage prior to eruption. The near constancy in the chemical and isotopic composition of the lava is consistent with the efficient homogenization of mantle-derived compositional variability. In contrast, occurrence of different mineral populations, including sulfide globules, which display significant compositional variability, requires a more complex earlier magmatic history. This may include sampling of heterogeneous mantle melts that mixed, crystallized and finally homogenized at mid- to lower-crustal conditions.
|
|
