| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- 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.
|
|
| 3. |
- Dahl, R., et al.
(author)
-
Efficacy and safety of sublingual immunotherapy with grass allergen tablets for seasonal allergic rhinoconjunctivitis
- 2006
-
In: J Allergy Clin Immunol.. ; 118:2
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Allergen immunotherapy (desensitization) by injection is effective for seasonal allergic rhinitis and has been shown to induce long-term disease remission. The sublingual route also has potential, although definitive evidence from large randomized controlled trials has been lacking. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to confirm the efficacy of a rapidly dissolving grass allergen tablet (GRAZAX, ALK-Abello, Horsholm, Denmark) compared with placebo in patients with seasonal rhinoconjunctivitis. METHODS: A longitudinal, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study that included 51 centers from 8 countries. Subjects were randomized (1:1) to receive a grass allergen tablet or placebo once daily. A total of 634 subjects with a history of grass pollen-induced rhinoconjunctivitis for at least 2 years and confirmation of IgE sensitivity (positive skin prick test and serum-specific IgE) were included in the study. Subjects commenced treatment at least 16 weeks before the grass pollen season, and treatment was continued throughout the entire season. RESULTS: The primary efficacy analysis showed a reduction of 30% in rhinoconjunctivitis symptom score (P < .0001) and a reduction of 38% in rhinoconjunctivitis medication score (P < .0001) compared with placebo. Side effects mainly comprised mild itching and swelling in the mouth that was in general well tolerated and led to treatment withdrawal in less than 4% of participants. There were no serious local side effects and no severe systemic adverse events. CONCLUSION: Sublingual immunotherapy with grass allergen tablets was effective in grass pollen-induced rhinoconjunctivitis. The tablet was well tolerated with minor local side effects. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The grass allergen tablet represents a safe alternative to injection immunotherapy suitable for home use.
|
|
