Confounding factors in diagnosing brain death: a case report

BACKGROUND: Brain death is strictly defined medically and legally. This diagnosis depends on three cardinal neurological features: coma, absent brainstem reflexes, and apnea. The diagnosis can only be made, however, in the absence of intoxication, hypothermia, or certain medical illnesses. CASE PRESENTATION: A patient with severe hypoxic-ischemic brain injury met the three cardinal neurological features of brain death but concurrent profound hypothyroidism precluded the diagnosis. Our clinical and ethical decisions were further challenged by another facet of this complex case. Although her brain damage indicated a hopeless prognosis, we could not discontinue care based on futility because the only known surrogate was mentally retarded and unable to participate in medical planning. CONCLUSION: The presence of certain medical conditions prohibits a diagnosis of brain death, which is a medicolegal diagnosis of death, not a prediction or forecast of future outcome. While prognostication is important in deciding to withdraw care, it is not a component in diagnosing brain death

Rodent models of focal cerebral ischemia: procedural pitfalls and translational problems

Rodent models of focal cerebral ischemia are essential tools in experimental stroke research. They have added tremendously to our understanding of injury mechanisms in stroke and have helped to identify potential therapeutic targets. A plethora of substances, however, in particular an overwhelming number of putative neuroprotective agents, have been shown to be effective in preclinical stroke research, but have failed in clinical trials. A lot of factors may have contributed to this failure of translation from bench to bedside. Often, deficits in the quality of experimental stroke research seem to be involved. In this article, we review the commonest rodent models of focal cerebral ischemia - middle cerebral artery occlusion, photothrombosis, and embolic stroke models - with their respective advantages and problems, and we address the issue of quality in preclinical stroke modeling as well as potential reasons for translational failure

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