11 research outputs found

    Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition)

    Get PDF
    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. For example, 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 versus those that measure fl ux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process including the amount and rate of cargo sequestered and degraded). In particular, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation must be differentiated from stimuli that increase autophagic activity, defi ned as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (inmost 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 fi eld 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. It is worth emphasizing here that lysosomal digestion is a stage of autophagy and evaluating its competence is a crucial part of the evaluation of autophagic flux, or complete autophagy. 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. Along these lines, because of the potential for pleiotropic effects due to blocking autophagy through genetic manipulation it is imperative to delete or knock down more than one autophagy-related gene. In addition, some individual Atg proteins, or groups of proteins, are involved in other cellular pathways so not all Atg proteins can be used as a specific marker for an autophagic process. 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

    SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with melanoma: results of the Spanish Melanoma Group registry

    No full text
    Background The Spanish Melanoma Group (GEM) developed a national registry of patients with melanoma infected by SARS-CoV-2 ( GRAVID ).Methods The main objective was to describe the COVID-19 fatality rate in patients with melanoma throughout the pandemic, as well as to explore the effect of melanoma treatment and tumor stage on the risk of COVID-19 complications. These are the final data of the register, including cases from February 2020 to September 2021.Results One hundred-fifty cases were registered. Median age was 68 years (range 6-95), 61 (40%) patients were females, and 63 (42%) patients had stage IV. Thirty-nine (26%) were on treatment with immunotherapy, and 17 (11%) with BRAF-MEK inhibitors. COVID-19 was resolved in 119 cases, including 85 (57%) patients cured, 15 (10%) that died due to melanoma, and 20 (13%) that died due to COVID-19. Only age over 60 years, cardiovascular disorders, and diabetes mellitus increased the risk of death due to COVID-19, but not advanced melanoma stage nor melanoma systemic therapies. Three waves have been covered by the register: February-May 2020, August-November 2020, and December 2020-April 2021. The first wave had the highest number of registered cases and COVID-19 mortality.Conclusion Tumor stage or melanoma treatments are non-significant prognostic factors for COVID-19 mortality. During the pandemic in Spain there was a downward trend in the number of patients registered across the waves, as well as in the severity of the infection

    Erratum to: Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition) (Autophagy, 12, 1, 1-222, 10.1080/15548627.2015.1100356

    No full text
    No abstract available

    The mitotic checkpoint complex (MCC): looking back and forth after 15 years

    No full text

    Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition)

    No full text

    Erratum to: Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition) (Autophagy, 12, 1, 1-222, 10.1080/15548627.2015.1100356

    No full text
    non present
    corecore