Bone morphogenetic protein 4 (BMP4) loss-of-function variant associated with autosomal dominant Stickler syndrome and renal dysplasia.

Stickler syndrome is a genetic disorder that can lead to joint problems, hearing difficulties and retinal detachment. Genes encoding collagen types II, IX and XI are usually responsible, but some families have no causal variant identified. We investigate a variant in the gene encoding growth factor BMP4 in a family with Stickler syndrome with associated renal dysplasia. Next generation sequencing of the coding region of COL2A1, COL11A1 and a panel of genes associated with congenital anomalies of the kidney and urinary tract (CAKUT) was performed. A novel heterozygous BMP4 variant causing a premature stop codon, c. 130G>T, p.(Gly44Ter), which segregated with clinical features of Stickler syndrome in multiple family members, was identified. No variant affecting gene function was detected in COL2A1 or COL11A1. Skin fibroblasts were cultured with and without emetine, and the mRNA extracted and analysed by Sanger sequencing to assess whether the change was causing nonsense-mediated decay. Nonsense-mediated decay was not observed from the extracted BMP4 mRNA. BMP4 is a growth factor known to contribute to eye development in animals, and gene variants in humans have been linked to microphthalmia/anophthalmia as well as CAKUT. The variant identified here further demonstrates the importance of BMP4 in eye development. This is the first report of a BMP4 DNA variant causing Stickler syndrome, and we suggest BMP4 be added to standard diagnostic gene panels for this condition

Defining the causes of sporadic Parkinson's disease in the global Parkinson's genetics program (GP2)

The Global Parkinson’s Genetics Program (GP2) will genotype over 150,000 participants from around the world, and integrate genetic and clinical data for use in large-scale analyses to dramatically expand our understanding of the genetic architecture of PD. This report details the workflow for cohort integration into the complex arm of GP2, and together with our outline of the monogenic hub in a companion paper, provides a generalizable blueprint for establishing large scale collaborative research consortia

Assessment of functional capacity before major non-cardiac surgery: an international, prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Functional capacity is an important component of risk assessment for major surgery. Doctors' clinical subjective assessment of patients' functional capacity has uncertain accuracy. We did a study to compare preoperative subjective assessment with alternative markers of fitness (cardiopulmonary exercise testing [CPET], scores on the Duke Activity Status Index [DASI] questionnaire, and serum N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide [NT pro-BNP] concentrations) for predicting death or complications after major elective non-cardiac surgery. METHODS: We did a multicentre, international, prospective cohort study at 25 hospitals: five in Canada, seven in the UK, ten in Australia, and three in New Zealand. We recruited adults aged at least 40 years who were scheduled for major non-cardiac surgery and deemed to have one or more risk factors for cardiac complications (eg, a history of heart failure, stroke, or diabetes) or coronary artery disease. Functional capacity was subjectively assessed in units of metabolic equivalents of tasks by the responsible anaesthesiologists in the preoperative assessment clinic, graded as poor (10). All participants also completed the DASI questionnaire, underwent CPET to measure peak oxygen consumption, and had blood tests for measurement of NT pro-BNP concentrations. After surgery, patients had daily electrocardiograms and blood tests to measure troponin and creatinine concentrations until the third postoperative day or hospital discharge. The primary outcome was death or myocardial infarction within 30 days after surgery, assessed in all participants who underwent both CPET and surgery. Prognostic accuracy was assessed using logistic regression, receiver-operating-characteristic curves, and net risk reclassification. FINDINGS: Between March 1, 2013, and March 25, 2016, we included 1401 patients in the study. 28 (2%) of 1401 patients died or had a myocardial infarction within 30 days of surgery. Subjective assessment had 19·2% sensitivity (95% CI 14·2-25) and 94·7% specificity (93·2-95·9) for identifying the inability to attain four metabolic equivalents during CPET. Only DASI scores were associated with predicting the primary outcome (adjusted odds ratio 0·96, 95% CI 0·83-0·99; p=0·03). INTERPRETATION: Subjectively assessed functional capacity should not be used for preoperative risk evaluation. Clinicians could instead consider a measure such as DASI for cardiac risk assessment. FUNDING: Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, Ontario Ministry of Research, Innovation and Science, UK National Institute of Academic Anaesthesia, UK Clinical Research Collaboration, Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists, and Monash University.This study was supported by grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, Ontario Ministry of Research, Innovation and Science, UK National Institute of Academic Anaesthesia, UK Clinical Research Collaboration, Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists, and Monash University (Melbourne, VIC, Australia). DNW is supported by a New Investigator Award from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. DNW and BHC are partly supported by Merit Awards from the Department of Anesthesia at the University of Toronto. RMP is a Career Development Fellow for the British Journal of Anaesthesia and Royal College of Anaesthetists, and a professor for the UK National Institute for Health Research. TEFA is a clinical research training fellow for the UK Medical Research Council and British Journal of Anaesthesia. MPWG holds the British Oxygen Company Chair of Anaesthesia of the Royal College of Anaesthetists, which is awarded by the UK National Institute of Academic Anaesthesia. We thank the Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St Michael's Hospital (Toronto, ON, Canada) for generously supporting the costs of international trial insurance for this study, and all the participating patients and staff across the 25 study sites

Defining the causes of sporadic Parkinson’s disease in the global Parkinson’s genetics program (GP2)

The Global Parkinson’s Genetics Program (GP2) will genotype over 150,000 participants from around the world, and integrate genetic and clinical data for use in large-scale analyses to dramatically expand our understanding of the genetic architecture of PD. This report details the workflow for cohort integration into the complex arm of GP2, and together with our outline of the monogenic hub in a companion paper, provides a generalizable blueprint for establishing large scale collaborative research consortia

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

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

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

non present