Displaying all 3 publications

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. Liversidge HM, Peariasamy K, Folayan MO, Adeniyi AO, Ngom PI, Mikami Y, et al.
    J Forensic Odontostomatol, 2017 Dec 01;35(2):97-108.
    PMID: 29384741
    BACKGROUND: The nature of differences in the timing of tooth formation between ethnic groups is important when estimating age.

    AIM: To calculate age of transition of the mandibular third (M3) molar tooth stages from archived dental radiographs from sub-Saharan Africa, Malaysia, Japan and two groups from London UK (Whites and Bangladeshi).

    MATERIALS AND METHODS: The number of radiographs was 4555 (2028 males, 2527 females) with an age range 10-25 years. The left M3 was staged into Moorrees stages. A probit model was fitted to calculate mean ages for transitions between stages for males and females and each ethnic group separately. The estimated age distributions given each M3 stage was calculated. To assess differences in timing of M3 between ethnic groups, three models were proposed: a separate model for each ethnic group, a joint model and a third model combining some aspects across groups. The best model fit was tested using Bayesian and Akaikes information criteria (BIC and AIC) and log likelihood ratio test.

    RESULTS: Differences in mean ages of M3 root stages were found between ethnic groups, however all groups showed large standard deviation values. The AIC and log likelihood ratio test indicated that a separate model for each ethnic group was best. Small differences were also noted between timing of M3 between males and females, with the exception of the Malaysian group. These findings suggests that features of a reference data set (wide age range and uniform age distribution) and a Bayesian statistical approach are more important than population specific convenience samples to estimate age of an individual using M3.

    CONCLUSION: Some group differences were evident in M3 timing, however, this has some impact on the confidence interval of estimated age in females and little impact in males because of the large variation in age.

  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