1. |
|
|
2. |
- Adam, J., et al.
(author)
-
Centrality dependence of inclusive J/psi production in p-Pb collisions at root S-NN=5.02TeV
- 2015
-
In: Journal of High Energy Physics. - 1029-8479. ; :11
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- We present a measurement of inclusive J/psi production in p-Pb collisions at root S-NN = 5.02 TeV as a function of the centrality of the collision, as estimated from the energy deposited in the Zero Degree Calorimeters. The measurement is performed with the ALICE detector down to zero transverse momentum, p(T), in the backward (-4.46 < y(cms) < -2.96) and forward (2.03 < y(cms) < 3.53) rapidity intervals in the dimuon decay channel and in the mid-rapidity region (-1.37 < y(cms) < 0.43) in the dielectron decay channel. The backward and forward rapidity intervals correspond to the Pb-going and p-going direction, respectively. The p(T)-differential J/psi production cross section at backward and forward rapidity is measured for several centrality classes, together with the corresponding average p(T) and p(T)(2) values. The nuclear modification factor is presented as a function of centrality for the three rapidity intervals, and as a function of p(T) for several centrality classes at backward and forward rapidity. At mid-and forward rapidity, the J/psi yield is suppressed up to 40% compared to that in pp interactions scaled by the number of binary collisions. The degree of suppression increases towards central p-Pb collisions at forward rapidity, and with decreasing p(T) of the J/psi. At backward rapidity, the nuclear modification factor is compatible with unity within the total uncertainties, with an increasing trend from peripheral to central p-Pb collisions.
|
|
3. |
|
|
4. |
|
|
5. |
- 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.
|
|
6. |
|
|
7. |
- 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.
|
|
8. |
- Huyghe, Jeroen R, et al.
(author)
-
Genetic architectures of proximal and distal colorectal cancer are partly distinct
- 2021
-
In: Gut. - : BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. - 0017-5749 .- 1468-3288. ; 70:7, s. 1325-1334
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Objective: An understanding of the etiologic heterogeneity of colorectal cancer (CRC) is critical for improving precision prevention, including individualized screening recommendations and the discovery of novel drug targets and repurposable drug candidates for chemoprevention. Known differences in molecular characteristics and environmental risk factors among tumors arising in different locations of the colorectum suggest partly distinct mechanisms of carcinogenesis. The extent to which the contribution of inherited genetic risk factors for CRC differs by anatomical subsite of the primary tumor has not been examined.Design: To identify new anatomical subsite-specific risk loci, we performed genome-wide association study (GWAS) meta-analyses including data of 48 214 CRC cases and 64 159 controls of European ancestry. We characterised effect heterogeneity at CRC risk loci using multinomial modelling.Results: We identified 13 loci that reached genome-wide significance (p<5×10-8) and that were not reported by previous GWASs for overall CRC risk. Multiple lines of evidence support candidate genes at several of these loci. We detected substantial heterogeneity between anatomical subsites. Just over half (61) of 109 known and new risk variants showed no evidence for heterogeneity. In contrast, 22 variants showed association with distal CRC (including rectal cancer), but no evidence for association or an attenuated association with proximal CRC. For two loci, there was strong evidence for effects confined to proximal colon cancer.Conclusion: Genetic architectures of proximal and distal CRC are partly distinct. Studies of risk factors and mechanisms of carcinogenesis, and precision prevention strategies should take into consideration the anatomical subsite of the tumour.
|
|
9. |
- Deming, Y., et al.
(author)
-
The MS4A gene cluster is a key modulator of soluble TREM2 and Alzheimer's disease risk
- 2019
-
In: Science Translational Medicine. - : American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). - 1946-6234 .- 1946-6242. ; 11:505
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Soluble triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 2 (sTREM2) in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) has been associated with Alzheimer's disease (AD). TREM2 plays a critical role in microglial activation, survival, and phagocytosis; however, the pathophysiological role of sTREM2 in AD is not well understood. Understanding the role of sTREM2 in AD may reveal new pathological mechanisms and lead to the identification of therapeutic targets. We performed a genome-wide association study (GWAS) to identify genetic modifiers of CSF sTREM2 obtained from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative. Common variants in the membrane-spanning 4-domains subfamily A (MS4A) gene region were associated with CSF sTREM2 concentrations (rs1582763; P = 1.15 x 10(-15)); this was replicated in independent datasets. The variants associated with increased CSF sTREM2 concentrations were associated with reduced AD risk and delayed age at onset of disease. The single-nucleotide polymorphism rs1582763 modified expression of the MS4A4A and MS4A6A genes in multiple tissues, suggesting that one or both of these genes are important for modulating sTREM2 production. Using human macrophages as a proxy for microglia, we found that MS4A4A and TREM2 colocalized on lipid rafts at the plasma membrane, that sTREM2 increased with MS4A4A overexpression, and that silencing of MS4A4A reduced sTREM2 production. These genetic, molecular, and cellular findings suggest that MS4A4A modulates sTREM2. These findings also provide a mechanistic explanation for the original GWAS signal in the MS4A locus for AD risk and indicate that TREM2 may be involved in AD pathogenesis not only in TREM2 risk-variant carriers but also in those with sporadic disease.
|
|
10. |
- Janssen, O., et al.
(author)
-
Characteristics of subjective cognitive decline associated with amyloid positivity
- 2022
-
In: Alzheimers & Dementia. - : Wiley. - 1552-5260 .- 1552-5279. ; 18:10, s. 1832-1845
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Introduction The evidence for characteristics of persons with subjective cognitive decline (SCD) associated with amyloid positivity is limited. Methods In 1640 persons with SCD from 20 Amyloid Biomarker Study cohort, we investigated the associations of SCD-specific characteristics (informant confirmation, domain-specific complaints, concerns, feelings of worse performance) demographics, setting, apolipoprotein E gene (APOE) epsilon 4 carriership, and neuropsychiatric symptoms with amyloid positivity. Results Between cohorts, amyloid positivity in 70-year-olds varied from 10% to 76%. Only older age, clinical setting, and APOE epsilon 4 carriership showed univariate associations with increased amyloid positivity. After adjusting for these, lower education was also associated with increased amyloid positivity. Only within a research setting, informant-confirmed complaints, memory complaints, attention/concentration complaints, and no depressive symptoms were associated with increased amyloid positivity. Feelings of worse performance were associated with less amyloid positivity at younger ages and more at older ages. Discussion Next to age, setting, and APOE epsilon 4 carriership, SCD-specific characteristics may facilitate the identification of amyloid-positive individuals.
|
|