Blood Gene Expression Predicts Bronchiolitis Obliterans Syndrome

Bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome (BOS), the main manifestation of chronic lung allograft dysfunction, leads to poor long-term survival after lung transplantation. Identifying predictors of BOS is essential to prevent the progression of dysfunction before irreversible damage occurs. By using a large set of 107 samples from lung recipients, we performed microarray gene expression profiling of whole blood to identify early biomarkers of BOS, including samples from 49 patients with stable function for at least 3 years, 32 samples collected at least 6 months before BOS diagnosis (prediction group), and 26 samples at or after BOS diagnosis (diagnosis group). An independent set from 25 lung recipients was used for validation by quantitative PCR (13 stables, 11 in the prediction group, and 8 in the diagnosis group). We identified 50 transcripts differentially expressed between stable and BOS recipients. Three genes, namely POU class 2 associating factor 1 (POU2AF1), T-cell leukemia/lymphoma protein 1A (TCL1A), and B cell lymphocyte kinase, were validated as predictive biomarkers of BOS more than 6 months before diagnosis, with areas under the curve of 0.83, 0.77, and 0.78 respectively. These genes allow stratification based on BOS risk (log-rank test p < 0.01) and are not associated with time posttransplantation. This is the first published large-scale gene expression analysis of blood after lung transplantation. The three-gene blood signature could provide clinicians with new tools to improve follow-up and adapt treatment of patients likely to develop BOS

Data from: Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science

This record contains the underlying research data for the publication "Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science" and the full-text is available from: https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/lkcsb_research/5257Reproducibility is a defining feature of science, but the extent to which it characterizes current research is unknown. We conducted replications of 100 experimental and correlational studies published in three psychology journals using high-powered designs and original materials when available. Replication effects were half the magnitude of original effects, representing a substantial decline. Ninety-seven percent of original studies had statistically significant results. Thirty-six percent of replications had statistically significant results; 47% of original effect sizes were in the 95% confidence interval of the replication effect size; 39% of effects were subjectively rated to have replicated the original result; and if no bias in original results is assumed, combining original and replication results left 68% with statistically significant effects. Correlational tests suggest that replication success was better predicted by the strength of original evidence than by characteristics of the original and replication teams

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