| 1. |
- 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.
|
|
| 2. |
- Beaulieu, Luc, et al.
(author)
-
Report of the Task Group 186 on model-based dose calculation methods in brachytherapy beyond the TG-43 formalism : Current status and recommendations for clinical implementation
- 2012
-
In: Medical physics (Lancaster). - : American Association of Physicists in Medicine. - 0094-2405. ; 39:10, s. 6208-6236
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The charge of Task Group 186 (TG-186) is to provide guidance for early adopters of model-based dose calculation algorithms (MBDCAs) for brachytherapy (BT) dose calculations to ensure practice uniformity. Contrary to external beam radiotherapy, heterogeneity correction algorithms have only recently been made available to the BT community. Yet, BT dose calculation accuracy is highly dependent on scatter conditions and photoelectric effect cross-sections relative to water. In specific situations, differences between the current water-based BT dose calculation formalism (TG-43) and MBDCAs can lead to differences in calculated doses exceeding a factor of 10. MBDCAs raise three major issues that are not addressed by current guidance documents: (1) MBDCA calculated doses are sensitive to the dose specification medium, resulting in energy-dependent differences between dose calculated to water in a homogeneous water geometry (TG-43), dose calculated to the local medium in the heterogeneous medium, and the intermediate scenario of dose calculated to a small volume of water in the heterogeneous medium. (2) MBDCA doses are sensitive to voxel-by-voxel interaction cross sections. Neither conventional single-energy CT nor ICRU∕ICRP tissue composition compilations provide useful guidance for the task of assigning interaction cross sections to each voxel. (3) Since each patient-source-applicator combination is unique, having reference data for each possible combination to benchmark MBDCAs is an impractical strategy. Hence, a new commissioning process is required. TG-186 addresses in detail the above issues through the literature review and provides explicit recommendations based on the current state of knowledge. TG-43-based dose prescription and dose calculation remain in effect, with MBDCA dose reporting performed in parallel when available. In using MBDCAs, it is recommended that the radiation transport should be performed in the heterogeneous medium and, at minimum, the dose to the local medium be reported along with the TG-43 calculated doses. Assignments of voxel-by-voxel cross sections represent a particular challenge. Electron density information is readily extracted from CT imaging, but cannot be used to distinguish between different materials having the same density. Therefore, a recommendation is made to use a number of standardized materials to maintain uniformity across institutions. Sensitivity analysis shows that this recommendation offers increased accuracy over TG-43. MBDCA commissioning will share commonalities with current TG-43-based systems, but in addition there will be algorithm-specific tasks. Two levels of commissioning are recommended: reproducing TG-43 dose parameters and testing the advanced capabilities of MBDCAs. For validation of heterogeneity and scatter conditions, MBDCAs should mimic the 3D dose distributions from reference virtual geometries. Potential changes in BT dose prescriptions and MBDCA limitations are discussed. When data required for full MBDCA implementation are insufficient, interim recommendations are made and potential areas of research are identified. Application of TG-186 guidance should retain practice uniformity in transitioning from the TG-43 to the MBDCA approach.
|
|
