| 1. |
- Klionsky, Daniel J., et al.
(författare)
-
Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy
- 2012
-
Ingår i: Autophagy. - : Informa UK Limited. - 1554-8635 .- 1554-8627. ; 8:4, s. 445-544
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)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. |
- Wang, Mojin, et al.
(författare)
-
The quantitative analysis by stem-loop real-time PCR revealed the microRNA-34a, microRNA-155 and microRNA-200c overexpression in human colorectal cancer
- 2012
-
Ingår i: Medical Oncology. - : Humana Press (Springer Imprint). - 1357-0560 .- 1559-131X. ; 29:5, s. 3113-3118
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The recently identified class of microRNAs (miRNAs) provided a new insight in cancer research. As the member of miRNAs family, miR-34a, miR-155 and miR-200c abnormalities have been found in various types of cancer. However, the relationship between these three miRNAs (miR-34a, miR-155 and miR-200c) and colorectal cancer is unclear. In this study, we applied stem-loop real-time PCR to quantitatively detect miR-34a, miR-155 and miR-200c expression in 109 pair-matched human colorectal cancers and the corresponding normal mucosa. MiR-34a (2.2-fold), miR-155 (2.3-fold) and miR-200c (3.1-fold) were all expressed at higher levels in colorectal cancer (P = 0.001, 0.005 and 0.001, respectively). In rectum, miR-34a and miR-200c were significantly upregulated (P = 0.006 and 0.007), while the miR-155 overexpression was not statistically significant (P = 0.083). In colon, the higher expression of three miRNAs was seen, however, without significant difference (P andgt; 0.05). We also found that the miR-34a expression was higher in rectal cancer having more advanced TNM stage (III + IV, P = 0.03). Then miR-200c expression was positively correlated with and sera CEA level of rectal cancer patients (P = 0.04). In conclusion, our results thus suggest that the overexpression of miR-34a, miR-155 and miR-200c be associated with the development of colorectal cancer, meanwhile miR-34a may be involved in the development and progression of rectal cancer. The more deeply and larger scale research are required to prove the correlation.
|
|
