| 1. |
-
- 2019
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)
|
|
| 2. |
- Beal, Jacob, et al.
(author)
-
Robust estimation of bacterial cell count from optical density
- 2020
-
In: Communications Biology. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 2399-3642. ; 3:1
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Optical density (OD) is widely used to estimate the density of cells in liquid culture, but cannot be compared between instruments without a standardized calibration protocol and is challenging to relate to actual cell count. We address this with an interlaboratory study comparing three simple, low-cost, and highly accessible OD calibration protocols across 244 laboratories, applied to eight strains of constitutive GFP-expressing E. coli. Based on our results, we recommend calibrating OD to estimated cell count using serial dilution of silica microspheres, which produces highly precise calibration (95.5% of residuals <1.2-fold), is easily assessed for quality control, also assesses instrument effective linear range, and can be combined with fluorescence calibration to obtain units of Molecules of Equivalent Fluorescein (MEFL) per cell, allowing direct comparison and data fusion with flow cytometry measurements: in our study, fluorescence per cell measurements showed only a 1.07-fold mean difference between plate reader and flow cytometry data.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
- 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.
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
- Cao, Renhai, et al.
(author)
-
Collaborative interplay between FGF-2 and VEGF-C promotes lymphangiogenesis and metastasis
- 2012
-
In: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. - : National Academy of Sciences. - 0027-8424 .- 1091-6490. ; 109:39, s. 15894-15899
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Interplay between various lymphangiogenic factors in promoting lymphangiogenesis and lymphatic metastasis remains poorly understood. Here we show that FGF-2 and VEGF-C, two lymphangiogenic factors, collaboratively promote angiogenesis and lymphangiogenesis in the tumor microenvironment, leading to widespread pulmonary and lymph-node metastases. Coimplantation of dual factors in the mouse cornea resulted in additive angiogenesis and lymphangiogenesis. At the molecular level, we showed that FGFR-1 expressed in lymphatic endothelial cells is a crucial receptor that mediates the FGF-2-induced lymphangiogenesis. Intriguingly, the VEGFR-3-mediated signaling was required for the lymphatic tip cell formation in both FGF-2- and VEGF-C-induced lymphangiogenesis. Consequently, a VEGFR-3-specific neutralizing antibody markedly inhibited FGF-2-induced lymphangiogenesis. Thus, the VEGFR-3-induced lymphatic endothelial cell tip cell formation is a prerequisite for FGF-2-stimulated lymphangiogenesis. In the tumor microenvironment, the reciprocal interplay between FGF-2 and VEGF-C collaboratively stimulated tumor growth, angiogenesis, intratumoral lymphangiogenesis, and metastasis. Thus, intervention and targeting of the FGF-2- and VEGF-C-induced angiogenic and lymphangiogenic synergism could be potentially important approaches for cancer therapy and prevention of metastasis.
|
|
| 10. |
- Cao, Renhai, et al.
(author)
-
Mouse corneal lymphangiogenesis model.
- 2011
-
In: Nature protocols. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1750-2799 .- 1754-2189. ; 6:6, s. 817-26
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- This protocol describes a powerful in vivo method to quantitatively study the formation of new lymphatic vessels in the avascular cornea without interference of pre-existing lymphatics. Implantation of 100 ng of lymphangiogenic factors such as vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-A, VEGF-C or fibroblast growth factor-2, together with slow-release polymers, into a surgically created micropocket in the mouse cornea elicits a robust lymphangiogenic response. Newly formed lymphatic vessels are detected by immunohistochemical staining of the flattened corneal tissue with lymphatic endothelial-specific markers such as lymphatic vessel endothelial hyaluronan receptor-1; less-specific markers such as vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 3 may also be used. Lymphatic vessel growth in relation to hemangiogenesis can be readily detected starting at day 5 or 6 after pellet implantation and persists for ∼14 d. This protocol offers a unique opportunity to study the mechanisms underlying lymphatic vessel formation, remodeling and function.
|
|
