Percepción de los pacientes oncológicos hospitalizados acerca del apoyo familiar en la Clínica Internacional 2013

Publicación a texto completo no autorizada por el autorDetermina la percepción que tienen los pacientes oncológicos hospitalizados en la Clínica Internacional, respecto al apoyo familiar que reciben. El estudio es de tipo cuantitativo, de nivel aplicativo, método descriptivo, de corte transversal, la técnica fue la encuesta y el instrumento un cuestionario estructurado. En los resultados se aprecia que el 32,5 % (13) pacientes tienen de 51 a 60 años, 62,5 % (25) de sexo masculino, con diagnóstico de colon 37,5 % (15). Del 100 % (49), 47,5% (19) tienen una dimensión física, 60% (24) dimensión psicológica, 42,5 % (17) dimensión social, presentan una percepción medianamente favorable. Se conlcuye que el mayor porcentaje de los pacientes tienen una percepción medianamente favorable sobre el apoyo familiar, siendo el de mayor predominio la dimensión psicológica, debido que los familiares le dan palabras de ánimos, pero no están a su lado, y no ayudan a sus actividades cotidianas.Trabajo académic

Genetic landscape of 6089 inherited retinal dystrophies affected cases in Spain and their therapeutic and extended epidemiological implications

Inherited retinal diseases (IRDs), defined by dysfunction or progressive loss of photoreceptors, are disorders characterized by elevated heterogeneity, both at the clinical and genetic levels. Our main goal was to address the genetic landscape of IRD in the largest cohort of Spanish patients reported to date. A retrospective hospital-based cross-sectional study was carried out on 6089 IRD affected individuals (from 4403 unrelated families), referred for genetic testing from all the Spanish autonomous communities. Clinical, demographic and familiar data were collected from each patient, including family pedigree, age of appearance of visual symptoms, presence of any systemic findings and geographical origin. Genetic studies were performed to the 3951 families with available DNA using different molecular techniques. Overall, 53.2% (2100/3951) of the studied families were genetically characterized, and 1549 different likely causative variants in 142 genes were identified. The most common phenotype encountered is retinitis pigmentosa (RP) (55.6% of families, 2447/4403). The most recurrently mutated genes were PRPH2, ABCA4 and RS1 in autosomal dominant (AD), autosomal recessive (AR) and X-linked (XL) NON-RP cases, respectively; RHO, USH2A and RPGR in AD, AR and XL for non-syndromic RP; and USH2A and MYO7A in syndromic IRD. Pathogenic variants c.3386G > T (p.Arg1129Leu) in ABCA4 and c.2276G > T (p.Cys759Phe) in USH2A were the most frequent variants identified. Our study provides the general landscape for IRD in Spain, reporting the largest cohort ever presented. Our results have important implications for genetic diagnosis, counselling and new therapeutic strategies to both the Spanish population and other related populations.This work was supported by the Instituto de Salud Carlos III (ISCIII) of the Spanish Ministry of Health (FIS; PI16/00425 and PI19/00321), Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red Enfermedades Raras (CIBERER, 06/07/0036), IIS-FJD BioBank (PT13/0010/0012), Comunidad de Madrid (CAM, RAREGenomics Project, B2017/BMD-3721), European Regional Development Fund (FEDER), the Organización Nacional de Ciegos Españoles (ONCE), Fundación Ramón Areces, Fundación Conchita Rábago and the University Chair UAM-IIS-FJD of Genomic Medicine. Irene Perea-Romero is supported by a PhD fellowship from the predoctoral Program from ISCIII (FI17/00192). Ionut F. Iancu is supported by a grant from the Comunidad de Madrid (CAM, PEJ-2017-AI/BMD7256). Marta del Pozo-Valero is supported by a PhD grant from the Fundación Conchita Rábago. Berta Almoguera is supported by a Juan Rodes program from ISCIII (JR17/00020). Pablo Minguez is supported by a Miguel Servet program from ISCIII (CP16/00116). Marta Corton is supported by a Miguel Servet program from ISCIII (CPII17/00006). The funders played no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, manuscript preparation and/or publication decisions

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

ESICM LIVES 2016: part two : Milan, Italy. 1-5 October 2016.

Meeting abstrac

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