GridIMAGE: A Novel Use of Grid Computing to Support Interactive Human and Computer-Assisted Detection Decision Support

This paper describes a Grid-aware image reviewing system (GridIMAGE) that allows practitioners to (a) select images from multiple geographically distributed digital imaging and communication in medicine (DICOM) servers, (b) send those images to a specified group of human readers and computer-assisted detection (CAD) algorithms, and (c) obtain and compare interpretations from human readers and CAD algorithms. The currently implemented system was developed using the National Cancer Institute caGrid infrastructure and is designed to support the identification of lung nodules on thoracic computed tomography. However, the infrastructure is general and can support any type of distributed review. caGrid data and analytical services are used to link DICOM image databases and CAD systems and to interact with human readers. Moreover, the service-oriented and distributed structure of the GridIMAGE framework enables a flexible system, which can be deployed in an institution (linking multiple DICOM servers and CAD algorithms) and in a Grid environment (linking the resources of collaborating research groups). GridIMAGE provides a framework that allows practitioners to obtain interpretations from one or more human readers or CAD algorithms. It also provides a mechanism to allow cooperative imaging groups to systematically perform image interpretation tasks associated with research protocols

VirtualPACS—A Federating Gateway to Access Remote Image Data Resources over the Grid

Collaborations in biomedical research and clinical studies require that data, software, and computational resources be shared between geographically distant institutions. In radiology, there is a related issue of sharing remote DICOM data over the Internet. This paper focuses on the problem of federating multiple image data resources such that clients can interact with them as if they are stored in a centralized PACS. We present a toolkit, called VirtualPACS, to support this functionality. Using the toolkit, users can perform standard DICOM operations (query, retrieve, and submit) across distributed image databases. The key features of the toolkit are: (1) VirtualPACS makes it easy to use existing DICOM client applications for data access; (2) it can easily be incorporated into an imaging workflow as a DICOM source; (3) using VirtualPACS, heterogeneous collections of DICOM sources are exposed to clients through a uniform interface and common data model; and (4) DICOM image databases without DICOM messaging can be accessed

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