Key features of puberty onset and progression can help distinguish self-limited delayed puberty from congenital hypogonadotrophic hypogonadism

Introduction: Delayed puberty (DP) is a frequent concern for adolescents. The most common underlying aetiology is self-limited DP (SLDP). However, this can be difficult to differentiate from the more severe condition congenital hypogonadotrophic hypogonadism (HH), especially on first presentation of an adolescent patient with DP. This study sought to elucidate phenotypic differences between the two diagnoses, in order to optimise patient management and pubertal development. Methods: This was a study of a UK DP cohort managed 2015-2023, identified through the NIHR clinical research network. Patients were followed longitudinally until adulthood, with a definite diagnosis made: SLDP if they had spontaneously completed puberty by age 18 years; HH if they had not commenced (complete, cHH), or had commenced but not completed puberty (partial, pHH), by this stage. Phenotypic data pertaining to auxology, Tanner staging, biochemistry, bone age and hormonal treatment at presentation and during puberty were retrospectively analysed. Results: 78 patients were included. 52 (66.7%) patients had SLDP and 26 (33.3%) patients had HH, comprising 17 (65.4%) pHH and 9 (34.6%) cHH patients. Probands were predominantly male (90.4%). Male SLDP patients presented with significantly lower height and weight standard deviation scores than HH patients (height p=0.004, weight p=0.021). 15.4% of SLDP compared to 38.5% of HH patients had classical associated features of HH (micropenis, cryptorchidism, anosmia, etc. p=0.023). 73.1% of patients with SLDP and 43.3% with HH had a family history of DP (p=0.007). Mean first recorded luteinizing hormone (LH) and inhibin B were lower in male patients with HH, particularly in cHH patients, but not discriminatory. There were no significant differences identified in blood concentrations of FSH, testosterone or AMH at presentation, or in bone age delay. Discussion: Key clinical markers of auxology, associated signs including micropenis, and serum inhibin B may help distinguish between SLDP and HH in patients presenting with pubertal delay, and can be incorporated into clinical assessment to improve diagnostic accuracy for adolescents. However, the distinction between HH, particularly partial HH, and SLDP remains problematic. Further research into an integrated framework or scoring system would be useful in aiding clinician decision-making and optimization of treatment.  

Key features of puberty onset and progression can help distinguish self-limited delayed puberty from congenital hypogonadotrophic hypogonadism

IntroductionDelayed puberty (DP) is a frequent concern for adolescents. The most common underlying aetiology is self-limited DP (SLDP). However, this can be difficult to differentiate from the more severe condition congenital hypogonadotrophic hypogonadism (HH), especially on first presentation of an adolescent patient with DP. This study sought to elucidate phenotypic differences between the two diagnoses, in order to optimise patient management and pubertal development.MethodsThis was a study of a UK DP cohort managed 2015-2023, identified through the NIHR clinical research network. Patients were followed longitudinally until adulthood, with a definite diagnosis made: SLDP if they had spontaneously completed puberty by age 18 years; HH if they had not commenced (complete, cHH), or had commenced but not completed puberty (partial, pHH), by this stage. Phenotypic data pertaining to auxology, Tanner staging, biochemistry, bone age and hormonal treatment at presentation and during puberty were retrospectively analysed.Results78 patients were included. 52 (66.7%) patients had SLDP and 26 (33.3%) patients had HH, comprising 17 (65.4%) pHH and 9 (34.6%) cHH patients. Probands were predominantly male (90.4%). Male SLDP patients presented with significantly lower height and weight standard deviation scores than HH patients (height p=0.004, weight p=0.021). 15.4% of SLDP compared to 38.5% of HH patients had classical associated features of HH (micropenis, cryptorchidism, anosmia, etc. p=0.023). 73.1% of patients with SLDP and 43.3% with HH had a family history of DP (p=0.007). Mean first recorded luteinizing hormone (LH) and inhibin B were lower in male patients with HH, particularly in cHH patients, but not discriminatory. There were no significant differences identified in blood concentrations of FSH, testosterone or AMH at presentation, or in bone age delay.DiscussionKey clinical markers of auxology, associated signs including micropenis, and serum inhibin B may help distinguish between SLDP and HH in patients presenting with pubertal delay, and can be incorporated into clinical assessment to improve diagnostic accuracy for adolescents. However, the distinction between HH, particularly partial HH, and SLDP remains problematic. Further research into an integrated framework or scoring system would be useful in aiding clinician decision-making and optimization of treatment.

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