Background Little is known regarding whether arterial stiffness and atherosclerotic burden are each independently associated with brain structural changes. Simultaneous assessments of both arterial stiffness and atherosclerotic burden in associations with brain could provide insights into the mechanisms of brain structural changes. Methods and Results Using data from the SESSA (Shiga Epidemiological Study of Subclinical Atherosclerosis), we analyzed data among 686 Japanese men (mean [SD] age, 67.9 [8.4] years; range, 46-83 years) free from history of stroke and myocardial infarction. Brachial-ankle pulse wave velocity and coronary artery calcification on computed tomography scans were measured between March 2010 and August 2014. Brain volumes (total brain volume, gray matter, Alzheimer disease signature and prefrontal) and brain vascular damage (white matter hyperintensities) were quantified using brain magnetic resonance imaging from January 2012 through February 2015. In multivariable adjustment models including mean arterial pressure, when brachial-ankle pulse wave velocity and coronary artery calcification were entered into the same models, the β (95% CI) for Alzheimer disease signature volume for each 1-SD increase in brachial-ankle pulse wave velocity was -0.33 (-0.64 to -0.02), and the unstandardized β (95% CI) for white matter hyperintensities for each 1-unit increase in coronary artery calcification was 0.68 (0.05-1.32). Brachial-ankle pulse wave velocity and coronary artery calcification were not statistically significantly associated with total brain and gray matter volumes. Conclusions Among Japanese men, higher arterial stiffness was associated with lower Alzheimer disease signature volumes, whereas higher atherosclerotic burden was associated with brain vascular damage. Arterial stiffness and atherosclerotic burden may be independently associated with brain structural changes via different pathways.
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.