Displaying all 6 publications

  1. Sakai N, Shirasaka J, Matsui Y, Ramli MR, Yoshida K, Ali Mohd M, et al.
    Chemosphere, 2017 Apr;172:234-241.
    PMID: 28081507 DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2016.12.139
    Five homologs (C10-C14) of linear alkylbenzene sulfonate (LAS) were quantitated in surface water collected in the Langat and Selangor River basins using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). A geographic information system (GIS) was used to spatially analyze the occurrence of LAS in both river basins, and the LAS contamination associated with the population was elucidated by spatial analysis at a sub-basin level. The LAS concentrations in the dissolved phase (<0.45 μm) and 4 fractions separated by particle size (<0.1 μm, 0.1-1 μm, 1-11 μm and >11 μm) were analyzed to elucidate the environmental fate of LAS in the study area. The environmental risks of the observed LAS concentration were assessed based on predicted no effect concentration (PNEC) normalized by a quantitative structure-activity relationship model. The LAS contamination mainly occurred from a few populated sub-basins, and it was correlated with the population density and ammonia nitrogen. The dissolved phase was less than 20% in high contamination sites (>1000 μg/L), whereas it was more than 60% in less contaminated sites (<100 μg/L). The environmental fate of LAS in the study area was primarily subject to the adsorption to suspended solids rather than biodegradation because the LAS homologs, particularly in longer alkyl chain lengths, were considerably absorbed to the large size fraction (>11 μm) that settled in a few hours. The observed LAS concentrations exceeded the normalized PNEC at 3 sites, and environmental risk areas and susceptible areas to the LAS contamination were spatially identified based on their catchment areas.
  2. Naramura T, Hyodo T, Kokubo K, Matsubara H, Wakai H, Nakajima F, et al.
    Nephron Extra, 2014 Jan;4(1):64-9.
    PMID: 24926310 DOI: 10.1159/000362454
    The number of dialysis patients has been increasing in Southeast Asia, but statistical data about these patients and on the quality of dialysates in Southeast Asian dialysis facilities are still imprecise. For this study, dialysis-related statistical data were collected in Southeast Asia.
  3. Yang HK, Ji J, Han SU, Terashima M, Li G, Kim HH, et al.
    Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2021 02;6(2):120-127.
    PMID: 33253659 DOI: 10.1016/S2468-1253(20)30315-0
    BACKGROUND: Peritoneal recurrence of gastric cancer after curative surgical resection is common and portends a poor prognosis. Early studies suggest that extensive intraoperative peritoneal lavage (EIPL) might reduce the risk of peritoneal recurrence and improve survival. We aimed to evaluate the survival benefit of EIPL in patients with gastric cancer undergoing curative gastrectomy.

    METHODS: In this open-label, phase 3, multicentre randomised trial, patients aged 21-80 years with cT3 or cT4 gastric cancer undergoing curative resection were enrolled at 22 centres from South Korea, China, Japan, Malaysia, Hong Kong, and Singapore. Patients were randomly assigned to receive surgery and EIPL (EIPL group) or surgery alone (standard surgery group) via a web-based programme in random permuted blocks in varying block sizes of four and six, assuming equal allocation between treatment groups. Randomisation was stratified according to study site and the sequence was generated using a computer program and concealed until the interventions were assigned. After surgery in the EIPL group, peritoneal lavage was done with 1 L of warm (42°C) normal 0·9% saline followed by complete aspiration; this procedure was repeated ten times. The primary endpoint was overall survival. All analyses were done assuming intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02140034.

    FINDINGS: Between Sept 16, 2012, and Aug 3, 2018, 800 patients were randomly assigned to the EIPL group (n=398) or the standard surgery group (n=402). Two patients in the EIPL group and one in the standard surgery group withdrew from the trial immediately after randomisation and were excluded from the intention-to-treat analysis. At the third interim analysis on Aug 28, 2019, the predictive probability of overall survival being significantly higher in the EIPL group was less than 0·5%; therefore, the trial was terminated on the basis of futility. With a median follow-up of 2·4 years (IQR 1·5-3·0), the two groups were similar in terms of overall survival (hazard ratio 1·09 [95% CI 0·78-1·52; p=0·62). 3-year overall survival was 77·0% (95% CI 71·4-81·6) for the EIPL group and 76·7% (71·0-81·5) for the standard surgery group. 60 adverse events were reported in the EIPL group and 41 were reported in the standard surgery group. The most common adverse events included anastomotic leak (ten [3%] of 346 patients in the EIPL group vs six [2%] of 362 patients in the standard surgery group), bleeding (six [2%] vs six [2%]), intra-abdominal abscess (four [1%] vs five [1%]), superficial wound infection (seven [2%] vs one [<1%]), and abnormal liver function (six [2%] vs one [<1%]). Ten of the reported adverse events (eight in the EIPL group and two in the standard surgery group) resulted in death.

    INTERPRETATION: EIPL and surgery did not have a survival benefit compared with surgery alone and is not recommended for patients undergoing curative gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

    FUNDING: National Medical Research Council, Singapore.

  4. 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
  5. 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
Contact Us

Please provide feedback to Administrator (tengcl@gmail.com)

External Links