An iterative block-shifting approach to retention time alignment that preserves the shape and area of gas chromatography-mass spectrometry peaks

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Metabolomics, petroleum and biodiesel chemistry, biomarker discovery, and other fields which rely on high-resolution profiling of complex chemical mixtures generate datasets which contain millions of detector intensity readings, each uniquely addressed along dimensions of <it>time </it>(<it>e.g.</it>, <it>retention time </it>of chemicals on a chromatographic column), a <it>spectral value </it>(<it>e.g., mass-to-charge ratio </it>of ions derived from chemicals), and the <it>analytical run number</it>. They also must rely on data preprocessing techniques. In particular, inter-run variance in the retention time of chemical species poses a significant hurdle that must be cleared before feature extraction, data reduction, and knowledge discovery can ensue. <it>Alignment methods</it>, for calibrating retention reportedly (and in our experience) can misalign matching chemicals, falsely align distinct ones, be unduly sensitive to chosen values of input parameters, and result in distortions of peak shape and area.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We present an iterative block-shifting approach for retention-time calibration that detects chromatographic features and qualifies them by retention time, spectrum, and the effect of their inclusion on the quality of alignment itself. Mass chromatograms are aligned pairwise to one selected as a reference. In tests using a 45-run GC-MS experiment, block-shifting reduced the absolute deviation of retention by greater than 30-fold. It compared favourably to COW and XCMS with respect to alignment, and was markedly superior in preservation of peak area.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Iterative block-shifting is an attractive method to align GC-MS mass chromatograms that is also generalizable to other two-dimensional techniques such as HPLC-MS.</p

2017 HRS/EHRA/ECAS/APHRS/SOLAECE expert consensus statement on catheter and surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation: executive summary.

S

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

Resident knowledge acquisition during a block conference series.

OBJECTIVE: This study\u27s objective was to determine whether attendance at lectures in a block conference format improves residents\u27 knowledge. METHODS: Seventeen family medicine residents were tested on the content of 27 lectures delivered in a block conference format over a 6-month period. For each lecture, residents completed a pretest, a short-term posttest, and a long-term posttest (1--3 weeks and 1.5--6 months after each lecture, respectively). RESULTS: Mean short-term posttest scores were 10.3 points higher for lecture attendees than nonattendees. Mean long-term posttest scores did not differ significantly for attendees (62.2) versus nonattendees (60.0). CONCLUSIONS: Attendance at didactic lectures in a block conference format did not improve resident knowledge over the long term. These results lead us to question the value of a block conference format and raise the possibility that resident learning might be better served by maximizing clinical experiences and minimizing time in conferences