Celiac crisis as the life-threatening onset of celiac disease in children. a case report

Celiac disease (CD) is an immune-mediated enteropathy caused by a permanent sensitivity to gluten in genetically susceptible individuals. In rare cases, CD may occur with a severe potential life-threatening manifestation known as a celiac crisis (CC). This may be a consequence of a delayed diagnosis and expose patients to possible fatal complications. We report the case of a 22-month-old child admitted to our hospital for a CC characterized by weight loss, vomiting, and diarrhea associated with a malnutrition state. Early identification of symptoms of CC is essential to provide a prompt diagnosis and management

Gastrointestinal Involvement in Children with Systemic Lupus Erythematosus

Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is a systemic autoimmune disorder. When it presents before the age of 18 years (childhood-onset systemic lupus erythematosus, cSLE), the disease course tends to be more severe with a higher rate of organ involvement and requires an early diagnosis. Gastrointestinal involvement in cSLE is rare and scarcely reported in the literature. Any organ of the gastrointestinal system may be affected, either as a direct consequence of the disease, as a subsequent complication, or as an adverse drug event. Abdominal pain is the most common GI symptom, it can be diffuse or well localized, and can underline different conditions such as hepatitis, pancreatitis, appendicitis, peritonitis, or enteritis. cSLE may have an alteration of the intestinal barrier with features of protein-losing enteropathy or, in genetically predisposed patients, may develop associated autoimmune disorders such as Coeliac Disease or Autoimmune Hepatitis. The aim of this manuscript is to provide a narrative review of gastrointestinal manifestations in cSLE focused on hepatic, pancreatic, and intestinal involvement. A comprehensive literature search based on the PubMed database was performed

Aportes para pensar la Archivología en el siglo XXI, desde la investigación, la extensión y la práctica

Fil: Vassallo, Jaqueline. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Filosofía y Humanidades. Escuela de Archivología; Argentina.Fil: García, Noelia. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Filosofía y Humanidades. Escuela de Archivología; Argentina.Fil: San Nicolás, Norma. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Filosofía y Humanidades. Escuela de Archivología; Argentina.Fil: Gómez, Ruth Gilda. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Filosofía y Humanidades. Escuela de Archivología; Argentina.Fil: Melián, Julio. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Filosofía y Humanidades. Escuela de Bibliotecología; Argentina.Fil: Ríos, Armando. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Filosofía y Humanidades. Escuela de Archivología; Argentina.Fil: Gallardo, Jésica. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Filosofía y Humanidades. Escuela de Archivología; Argentina.Fil: López, Rosa. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Filosofía y Humanidades. Escuela de Archivología; Argentina.Fil: Quevedo, Graciela. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Filosofía y Humanidades. Escuela de Archivología; Argentina.Fil: Costilla, Graciela del Valle. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Filosofía y Humanidades. Escuela de Archivología; Argentina.Fil: Fois, Silvia Graciela. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Filosofía y Humanidades. Escuela de Bibliotecología; Argentina.Fil: Gutiérrez, Clelia Ivone. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Filosofía y Humanidades. Escuela de Archivología; Argentina.Fil: Pérez, Sandra Verónica. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Filosofía y Humanidades. Escuela de Archivología; Argentina.Fil: Fenoglio, Norma Catalina. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Filosofía y Humanidades. Escuela de Archivología; Argentina.Fil: Brunero, Sofía Yanina. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Filosofía y Humanidades. Escuela de Archivología; Argentina.Fil: Benito Moya, Silvano. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Filosofía y Humanidades. Escuela de Archivología; Argentina.Fil: Benito Moya, Silvano. Centro de Estudios Históricos Profesor Carlos S. A. Segretti (CEH); Argentina.Fil: Benito Moya, Silvano. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Ministerio de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación de la Nación. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET). Unidades Asociadas (UA); Argentina.Fil: Salamanca López, Manuel Joaquín. Universidad Complutense de Madrid. Departamento de Ciencia y Técnicas Historiográficas; España.Fil: Chacón Gómez-Monedero. Universidad Autónoma de Madrid; España.Nos proponemos compartir algunas reflexiones en torno a un Proyecto extensionista, radicado en la Secretaría de Extensión Universitaria (SEU) de la UNC, denominado RED CUTURAL DE AUDIOVISUALES REALIZADOS EN CÓRDOBA. Actualmente se ejecuta la segunda fase, aprobado para un nuevo período2 (2013-2014). A través de este proyecto, se pretende recuperar y poner en valor las obras audiovisuales de ficción y de no ficción. Géneros que consideramos, forman parte del Patrimonio Audiovisual de Córdoba y dentro del mismo constituyen parte esencial del Patrimonio Cultural de los cordobeses. El proyecto articula el aporte interdisciplinario que se realiza desde distintas unidades académicas, centros de investigación y cátedras de la Universidad Nacional de Córdoba (UNC), con organizaciones sociales, bibliotecas populares, colectivos culturales, establecimientos educativos y gremios. Esta articulación asume el propósito de conformar un archivo y centro de documentación audiovisual como espacio de protección, organización y difusión de las obras documentales y ficcionales generadas en Córdoba. Palabras claves: Patrimonio audiovisual - Archivo y Centro de Documentación - Red cultural.Fil: Vassallo, Jaqueline. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Filosofía y Humanidades. Escuela de Archivología; Argentina.Fil: García, Noelia. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Filosofía y Humanidades. Escuela de Archivología; Argentina.Fil: San Nicolás, Norma. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Filosofía y Humanidades. Escuela de Archivología; Argentina.Fil: Gómez, Ruth Gilda. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Filosofía y Humanidades. Escuela de Archivología; Argentina.Fil: Melián, Julio. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Filosofía y Humanidades. Escuela de Bibliotecología; Argentina.Fil: Ríos, Armando. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Filosofía y Humanidades. Escuela de Archivología; Argentina.Fil: Gallardo, Jésica. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Filosofía y Humanidades. Escuela de Archivología; Argentina.Fil: López, Rosa. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Filosofía y Humanidades. Escuela de Archivología; Argentina.Fil: Quevedo, Graciela. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Filosofía y Humanidades. Escuela de Archivología; Argentina.Fil: Costilla, Graciela del Valle. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Filosofía y Humanidades. Escuela de Archivología; Argentina.Fil: Fois, Silvia Graciela. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Filosofía y Humanidades. Escuela de Bibliotecología; Argentina.Fil: Gutiérrez, Clelia Ivone. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Filosofía y Humanidades. Escuela de Archivología; Argentina.Fil: Pérez, Sandra Verónica. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Filosofía y Humanidades. Escuela de Archivología; Argentina.Fil: Fenoglio, Norma Catalina. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Filosofía y Humanidades. Escuela de Archivología; Argentina.Fil: Brunero, Sofía Yanina. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Filosofía y Humanidades. Escuela de Archivología; Argentina.Fil: Benito Moya, Silvano. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Filosofía y Humanidades. Escuela de Archivología; Argentina.Fil: Benito Moya, Silvano. Centro de Estudios Históricos Profesor Carlos S. A. Segretti (CEH); Argentina.Fil: Benito Moya, Silvano. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Ministerio de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación de la Nación. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET). Unidades Asociadas (UA); Argentina.Fil: Salamanca López, Manuel Joaquín. Universidad Complutense de Madrid. Departamento de Ciencia y Técnicas Historiográficas; España.Fil: Chacón Gómez-Monedero. Universidad Autónoma de Madrid; España.Otras Humanidade

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field