| 1. |
- Bernal, Ximena E., et al.
(author)
-
Empowering Latina scientists
- 2019
-
In: Science. - : American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). - 0036-8075 .- 1095-9203. ; 363:6429, s. 825-826
-
Journal article (other academic/artistic)
|
|
| 2. |
- 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.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Carraminana, Albert, et al.
(author)
-
Rationale and Study Design for an Individualized Perioperative Open Lung Ventilatory Strategy in Patients on One-Lung Ventilation (iPROVE-OLV)
- 2019
-
In: Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia. - : W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC. - 1053-0770 .- 1532-8422. ; 33:9, s. 2492-2502
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Objective: The aim of this clinical trial is to examine whether it is possible to reduce postoperative complications using an individualized perioperative ventilatory strategy versus using a standard lung-protective ventilation strategy in patients scheduled for thoracic surgery requiring one-lung ventilation. Design: International, multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled clinical trial. Setting: A network of university hospitals. Participants: The study comprises 1,380 patients scheduled for thoracic surgery. Interventions: The individualized group will receive intraoperative recruitment maneuvers followed by individualized positive end-expiratory pressure (open lung approach) during the intraoperative period plus postoperative ventilatory support with high-flow nasal cannula, whereas the control group will be managed with conventional lung-protective ventilation. Measurements and Main Results: Individual and total number of postoperative complications, including atelectasis, pneumothorax, pleural effusion, pneumonia, acute lung injury; unplanned readmission and reintubation; length of stay and death in the critical care unit and in the hospital will be analyzed for both groups. The authors hypothesize that the intraoperative application of an open lung approach followed by an individual indication of high-flow nasal cannula in the postoperative period will reduce pulmonary complications and length of hospital stay in high-risk surgical patients. (C) 2019 Published by Elsevier Inc.
|
|
| 5. |
- Kehoe, Laura, et al.
(author)
-
Make EU trade with Brazil sustainable
- 2019
-
In: Science. - : American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). - 0036-8075 .- 1095-9203. ; 364:6438, s. 341-
-
Journal article (other academic/artistic)
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
- Ferrando, Carlos, et al.
(author)
-
Rationale and study design for an individualized perioperative open lung ventilatory strategy (iPROVE) : study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
- 2015
-
In: Trials. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1745-6215. ; 16
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background: Postoperative pulmonary and non-pulmonary complications are common problems that increase morbidity and mortality in surgical patients, even though the incidence has decreased with the increased use of protective lung ventilation strategies. Previous trials have focused on standard strategies in the intraoperative or postoperative period, but without personalizing these strategies to suit the needs of each individual patient and without considering both these periods as a global perioperative lung-protective approach. The trial presented here aims at comparing postoperative complications when using an individualized ventilatory management strategy in the intraoperative and immediate postoperative periods with those when using a standard protective ventilation strategy in patients scheduled for major abdominal surgery. Methods: This is a comparative, prospective, multicenter, randomized, and controlled, four-arm trial that will include 1012 patients with an intermediate or high risk for postoperative pulmonary complications. The patients will be divided into four groups: (1) individualized perioperative group: intra-and postoperative individualized strategy; (2) intraoperative individualized strategy + postoperative continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP); (3) intraoperative standard ventilation + postoperative CPAP; (4) intra-and postoperative standard strategy (conventional strategy). The primary outcome is a composite analysis of postoperative complications. Discussion: The Individualized Perioperative Open-lung Ventilatory Strategy (iPROVE) is the first multicenter, randomized, and controlled trial to investigate whether an individualized perioperative approach prevents postoperative pulmonary complications.
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
