| 1. |
- Aad, G., et al.
(author)
-
- 2014
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)
|
|
| 2. |
- Aad, G., et al.
(author)
-
- 2012
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)
|
|
| 3. |
- Aad, G., et al.
(author)
-
- 2013
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)
|
|
| 4. |
- Aad, G., et al.
(author)
-
- 2013
-
In: Journal of Instrumentation. - 1748-0221. ; 8
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)
|
|
| 5. |
- Aad, G., et al.
(author)
-
- 2012
-
In: Journal of High Energy Physics. - 1029-8479 .- 1126-6708. ; :11
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)
|
|
| 6. |
- Aad, G., et al.
(author)
-
- 2013
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)
|
|
| 7. |
- Aad, G., et al.
(author)
-
- 2012
-
swepub:Mat__t (peer-reviewed)
|
|
| 8. |
- Aad, G., et al.
(author)
-
- 2012
-
swepub:Mat__t (peer-reviewed)
|
|
| 9. |
- 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.
|
|
| 10. |
- Pelkmans, L., et al.
(author)
-
Monitoring the Impact of Sustainability Certification in Relation to Biomass Use for Energy
- 2012
-
In: EUBCE 2012 proceedings. - 9788889407547 ; , s. 2013-2018
-
Conference paper (other academic/artistic)abstract
- Since the public has expressed concern about unintended consequences associated with potentially unsustainable biomass production and use for energy (or biofuels), producers of biomass feedstocks in the private sector as well as governmental and non-governmental organisations have initiated many generally unlinked efforts to define 'sustainable' bioenergy production and supply chains. These 'sustainability' standards may be implemented through certification systems involving 3rd party audit, and influence production systems and trade of bioenergy products from producers to consumers of ‘green' energy. At present numerous biomass and biofuel sustainability certification systems are being developed or implemented by a variety of private and public organisations. Systems are applicable to different feedstock production sectors (forests, agricultural crops), different bioenergy products (relatively unprocessed forest residues, ethanol, biodiesel, electricity), and whole or segments of supply chains (production system, chain of custody from growers to energy consumers). It is expected that such a wide range of systems, developed largely without coordination among the organisations involved, could be problematic for all stakeholders along the supply chain in individual sectors and for those involved in deployment of bioenergy systems globally. These are individual feedstock producers, companies and commodity sectors that must comply with these systems either to maintain market access and share or to comply with legislative mandates, and also consumers who prefer to purchase certified green energy, and regulatory agencies and local to national governments that may be involved in enforcing sustainability standards. The potential for confusion among the actors, depression of markets, and unnecessary restrictions on sustainable trade seems high. Within IEA Bioenergy a strategic study was initiated between Task 40, Task 43 and Task 38 to monitor the actual implementation process of sustainability certification of bioenergy, evaluate how stakeholders are affected by certification initiatives, quantify the anticipated impact on worldwide bioenergy trade, assess the level of coordination among schemes, and make recommendations to remove barriers which may depress markets and reduce sustainable trade. Interaction with different stakeholder groups is one of the main objectives of this study, so we anticipate the recommendations being representative of the whole bioenergy certification sector and therefore having high potential to improve an otherwise uncoordinated interest in ensuring bioenergy trade is sustainable.
|
|
