Genetic Ancestry, Race, and Severity of Acutely Decompensated Cirrhosis in Latin America

Background & Aims: Genetic ancestry or racial differences in health outcomes exist in diseases associated with systemic inflammation (eg, COVID-19). This study aimed to investigate the association of genetic ancestry and race with acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF), which is characterized by acute systemic inflammation, multi-organ failure, and high risk of short-term death. / Methods: This prospective cohort study analyzed a comprehensive set of data, including genetic ancestry and race among several others, in 1274 patients with acutely decompensated cirrhosis who were nonelectively admitted to 44 hospitals from 7 Latin American countries. / Results: Three hundred ninety-five patients (31.0%) had ACLF of any grade at enrollment. Patients with ACLF had a higher median percentage of Native American genetic ancestry and lower median percentage of European ancestry than patients without ACLF (22.6% vs 12.9% and 53.4% vs 59.6%, respectively). The median percentage of African genetic ancestry was low among patients with ACLF and among those without ACLF. In terms of race, a higher percentage of patients with ACLF than patients without ACLF were Native American and a lower percentage of patients with ACLF than patients without ACLF were European American or African American. In multivariable analyses that adjusted for differences in sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, the odds ratio for ACLF at enrollment was 1.08 (95% CI, 1.03–1.13) with Native American genetic ancestry and 2.57 (95% CI, 1.84–3.58) for Native American race vs European American race. / Conclusions: In a large cohort of Latin American patients with acutely decompensated cirrhosis, increasing percentages of Native American ancestry and Native American race were factors independently associated with ACLF at enrollment

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)1.

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