A left thoracic approach in a prone position for thoracoscopic thoracic duct ligation in a patient with post-esophagectomy chylothorax: A case report

INTRODUCTION: We debate whether or not to approach from right thorax for the left chylothorax afteresophagectomy.PRESENTATION OF CASE: A 50 s-year-old female underwent right-sided thoracoscopic esophagectomywith three-field lymphadenectomy for esophageal carcinoma (type 0-IIa, 3.4 × 2.2 cm, T1bN0M0, StageIA), followed by reconstruction with esophagogastric anastomosis through the posterior mediastinum.The thoracic duct was excised and ligated. The left thoracic drainage increased to 2115 mL/day on thefifth postoperative day. Thoracic duct injury was diagnosed, and surgery was performed on sixth post-operative day. With the patient in a prone position, the thoracic duct was ligated successfully underthoracoscopy in the left thorax. The leakage point was found in the crushed duct by 8.8-mm tita-nium clips. Then, we performed mass ligation of the thoracic duct with 11-mm titanium clips belowthe leakage point after careful dissection. The surgery took 58 min, with an estimated total blood lossof 0 g.DISCUSSION: Although thoracic duct is anatomically located on the right side of the descending aorta,we employed a left-sided thoracoscopic approach due to the chylous leakage in the left thorax. With thepatient in the prone position, surgeons can easily convert from a left thoracic approach to a right thoracicapproach immediately without postural change if the thoracic duct cannot be found in the left thoraciccavity.CONCLUSION: This technique is useful and should be considered for patients with left chylothorax

SGLT5 Reabsorbs Fructose in the Kidney but Its Deficiency Paradoxically Exacerbates Hepatic Steatosis Induced by Fructose

Although excessive fructose intake is epidemiologically linked with dyslipidemia, obesity, and diabetes, the mechanisms regulating plasma fructose are not well known. Cells transfected with sodium/glucose cotransporter 5 (SGLT5), which is expressed exclusively in the kidney, transport fructose in vitro; however, the physiological role of this transporter in fructose metabolism remains unclear. To determine whether SGLT5 functions as a fructose transporter in vivo, we established a line of mice lacking the gene encoding SGLT5. Sodium-dependent fructose uptake disappeared in renal brush border membrane vesicles from SGLT5-deficient mice, and the increased urinary fructose in SGLT5-deficient mice indicated that SGLT5 was the major fructose reabsorption transporter in the kidney. From this, we hypothesized that urinary fructose excretion induced by SGLT5 deficiency would ameliorate fructose-induced hepatic steatosis. To test this hypothesis we compared SGLT5-deficient mice with wild-type mice under conditions of long-term fructose consumption. Paradoxically, however, fructose-induced hepatic steatosis was exacerbated in the SGLT5-deficient mice, and the massive urinary fructose excretion was accompanied by reduced levels of plasma triglycerides and epididymal fat but fasting hyperinsulinemia compared with fructose-fed wild-type mice. There was no difference in food consumption, water intake, or plasma fructose between the two types of mice. No compensatory effect by other transporters reportedly involved in fructose uptake in the liver and kidney were indicated at the mRNA level. These surprising findings indicated a previously unrecognized link through SGLT5 between renal fructose reabsorption and hepatic lipid metabolism

The Physics of the B Factories

This work is on the Physics of the B Factories. Part A of this book contains a brief description of the SLAC and KEK B Factories as well as their detectors, BaBar and Belle, and data taking related issues. Part B discusses tools and methods used by the experiments in order to obtain results. The results themselves can be found in Part C

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

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