Displaying all 3 publications

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. Zhou J, Wu C, Yeh PJ, Ju J, Zhong L, Wang S, et al.
    Sci Total Environ, 2023 Sep 01;889:164274.
    PMID: 37209749 DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.164274
    The successive flood-heat extreme (SFHE) event, which threatens the securities of human health, economy, and building environment, has attracted extensive research attention recently. However, the potential changes in SFHE characteristics and the global population exposure to SFHE under anthropogenic warming remain unclear. Here, we present a global-scale evaluation of the projected changes and uncertainties in SFHE characteristics (frequency, intensity, duration, land exposure) and population exposure under the Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 2.6 and 6.0 scenarios, based on the multi-model ensembles (five global water models forced by four global climate models) within the Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project 2b framework. The results reveal that, relative to the 1970-1999 baseline period, the SFHE frequency is projected to increase nearly globally by the end of this century, especially in the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau (>20 events/30-year) and the tropical regions (e.g., northern South America, central Africa, and southeastern Asia, >15 events/30-year). The projected higher SFHE frequency is generally accompanied by a larger model uncertainty. By the end of this century, the SFHE land exposure is expected to increase by 12 % (20 %) under RCP2.6 (RCP6.0), and the intervals between flood and heatwave in SFHE tend to decrease by up to 3 days under both RCPs, implying the more intermittent SFHE occurrence under future warming. The SFHE events will lead to the higher population exposure in the Indian Peninsula and central Africa (<10 million person-days) and eastern Asia (<5 million person-days) due to the higher population density and the longer SFHE duration. Partial correlation analysis indicates that the contribution of flood to the SFHE frequency is greater than that of heatwave for most global regions, but the SFHE frequency is dominated by the heatwave in northern North America and northern Asia.
  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. 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.
Related Terms
Filters
Contact Us

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

External Links