Analysis of machine perfusion benefits in kidney grafts: a preclinical study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Machine perfusion (MP) has potential benefits for marginal organs such as from deceased from cardiac death donors (DCD). However, there is still no consensus on MP benefits. We aimed to determine machine perfusion benefits on kidney grafts.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We evaluated kidney grafts preserved in ViaspanUW or KPS solutions either by CS or MP, in a DCD pig model (60 min warm ischemia + 24 h hypothermic preservation). Endpoints were: function recovery, quality of function during follow up (3 month), inflammation, fibrosis, animal survival.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>ViaspanUW-CS animals did not recover function, while in other groups early follow up showed similar values for kidney function. Alanine peptidase and β-NAG activities in the urine were higher in CS than in MP groups. Oxydative stress was lower in KPS-MP animals. Histology was improved by MP over CS. Survival was 0% in ViaspanUW-CS and 60% in other groups. Chronic inflammation, epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition and fibrosis were lowest in KPS-MP, followed by KPS-CS and ViaspanUW-MP.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>With ViaspanUW, effects of MP are obvious as only MP kidney recovered function and allowed survival. With KPS, the benefits of MP over CS are not directly obvious in the early follow up period and only histological analysis, urinary tubular enzymes and red/ox status was discriminating. Chronic follow-up was more conclusive, with a clear superiority of MP over CS, independently of the solution used. KPS was proven superior to ViaspanUW in each preservation method in terms of function and outcome. In our pre-clinical animal model of DCD transplantation, MP offers critical benefits.</p

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)

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