Displaying all 4 publications

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. Klionsky DJ, Abdel-Aziz AK, Abdelfatah S, Abdellatif M, Abdoli A, Abel S, et al.
    Autophagy, 2021 Jan;17(1):1-382.
    PMID: 33634751 DOI: 10.1080/15548627.2020.1797280
    In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field.
  2. Klionsky DJ, Abdelmohsen K, Abe A, Abedin MJ, Abeliovich H, Acevedo Arozena A, et al.
    Autophagy, 2016;12(1):1-222.
    PMID: 26799652 DOI: 10.1080/15548627.2015.1100356
  3. Gopalakrishna G, Langendam M, Scholten R, Bossuyt P, Leeflang M, Noel-Storr A, et al.
    Diagn Progn Res, 2017;1:11.
    PMID: 31095132 DOI: 10.1186/s41512-017-0011-4
    [This corrects the article DOI: 10.1186/s41512-016-0001-y.].
  4. McInerney-Leo AM, Harris JE, Leo PJ, Marshall MS, Gardiner B, Kinning E, et al.
    Clin Genet, 2015 Dec;88(6):550-7.
    PMID: 25492405 DOI: 10.1111/cge.12550
    Short-rib thoracic dystrophies (SRTDs) are congenital disorders due to defects in primary cilium function. SRTDs are recessively inherited with mutations identified in 14 genes to date (comprising 398 exons). Conventional mutation detection (usually by iterative Sanger sequencing) is inefficient and expensive, and often not undertaken. Whole exome massive parallel sequencing has been used to identify new genes for SRTD (WDR34, WDR60 and IFT172); however, the clinical utility of whole exome sequencing (WES) has not been established. WES was performed in 11 individuals with SRTDs. Compound heterozygous or homozygous mutations were identified in six confirmed SRTD genes in 10 individuals (IFT172, DYNC2H1, TTC21B, WDR60, WDR34 and NEK1), giving overall sensitivity of 90.9%. WES data from 993 unaffected individuals sequenced using similar technology showed two individuals with rare (minor allele frequency <0.005) compound heterozygous variants of unknown significance in SRTD genes (specificity >99%). Costs for consumables, laboratory processing and bioinformatic analysis were
Related Terms
Filters
Contact Us

Please provide feedback to Administrator (afdal@afpm.org.my)

External Links