Association of Apolipoprotein E With Intracerebral Hemorrhage Risk by Race/Ethnicity A Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE Genetic studies of intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) have focused mainly on white participants, but genetic risk may vary or could be concealed by differing nongenetic coexposures in nonwhite populations. Transethnic analysis of risk may clarify the role of genetics in ICH risk across populations.OBJECTIVE To evaluate associations between established differences in ICH risk by race/ethnicity and the variability in the risks of apolipoprotein E (APOE) epsilon 4 alleles, the most potent genetic risk factor for ICH.DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This case-control study of primary ICH meta-analyzed the association of APOE allele status on ICH risk, applying a 2-stage clustering approach based on race/ethnicity and stratified by a contributing study. A propensity score analysis was used to model the association of APOE with the burden of hypertension across race/ethnic groups. Primary ICH cases and controls were collected from 3 hospital- and population-based studies in the United States and 8 in European sites in the International Stroke Genetic Consortium. Participants were enrolled from January 1, 1999, to December 31, 2017. Participants with secondary causes of ICH were excluded from enrollment. Controls were regionally matched within each participating study.MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Clinical variables were systematically obtained from structured interviews within each site. APOE genotype was centrally determined for all studies.RESULTS In total, 13 124 participants (7153 [54.5%] male with a median [interquartile range] age of 66 [56-76] years) were included. In white participants, APOE epsilon 2 (odds ratio [OR], 1.49; 95% CI, 1.24-1.80; P &lt;.001) and APOE epsilon 4 (OR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.23-1.85; P &lt;.001) were associated with lobar ICH risk; however, within self-identified Hispanic and black participants, no associations were found. After propensity score matching for hypertension burden, APOE epsilon 4 was associated with lobar ICH risk among Hispanic (OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.03-1.28; P = .01) but not in black (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.98-1.07; P = .25) participants. APOE epsilon 2 and epsilon 4 did not show an association with nonlobar ICH risk in any race/ethnicity.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE APOE epsilon 4 and epsilon 2 alleles appear to affect lobar ICH risk variably by race/ethnicity, associations that are confirmed in white individuals but can be shown in Hispanic individuals only when the excess burden of hypertension is propensity score-matched; further studies are needed to explore the interactions between APOE alleles and environmental exposures that vary by race/ethnicity in representative populations at risk for ICH.</p

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