111 research outputs found
Recommended from our members
The Prevalence and Correlation of Non-motor Symptoms in Adult Patients with Idiopathic Focal or Segmental Dystonia
Background: Idiopathic focal dystonia is a motor syndrome associated with dysfunction of basal ganglia circuits. Observations have suggested that many other non-motor symptoms may also be part of the clinical picture. The aim was to assess the prevalence and correlation of non-motor symptoms in patients with common idiopathic focal or segmental dystonia.
Methods: In a single-center cross-sectional case–control study, we evaluated the presence of pain, neuropsychiatric symptoms, and sleep alterations in 28 patients with blepharospasm, 28 patients with cervical dystonia, 24 patients with writer’s cramp, and 80 control subjects matched for sex, age, and schooling. We obtained clinical and demographic data, and evaluated patients using the Fahn–Marsden Dystonia Rating Scale and other specific scales for dystonia. All subjects completed the following questionnaires: Beck Depression Inventory, Beck Anxiety Inventory, Social Phobia Inventory, Apathy Scale, Epworth Sleepiness Scale, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, Brief Pain Scale, and the World Health Organization Quality of Life brief scale.
Results: The patients presented more symptoms of depression, anxiety, and apathy than the control subjects. They also reported worse quality of sleep and more pain complaints. Patients with blepharospasm were the most symptomatic subgroup. The patients had worse quality of life, and the presence of pain and symptoms of apathy and depression were the main influences for these findings, but not the severity of motor symptoms.
Discussion: Patients with dystonia, especially those with blepharospasm, showed higher prevalence of symptoms of depression, anxiety, apathy, worse quality of sleep, and pain. These symptoms had a negative impact on their quality of life
Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition)
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
- …