Studies to elucidate the role of genetics as a risk factor for periodontal disease have gone through various phases. In the majority of cases, the initial 'hypothesis-dependent' candidate-gene polymorphism studies did not report valid genetic risk loci. Following a large-scale replication study, these initially positive results are believed to be caused by type 1 errors. However, susceptibility genes, such as CDKN2BAS (Cyclin Dependend KiNase 2B AntiSense RNA; alias ANRIL [ANtisense Rna In the Ink locus]), glycosyltransferase 6 domain containing 1 (GLT6D1) and cyclooxygenase 2 (COX2), have been reported as conclusive risk loci of periodontitis. The search for genetic risk factors accelerated with the advent of 'hypothesis-free' genome-wide association studies (GWAS). However, despite many different GWAS being performed for almost all human diseases, only three GWAS on periodontitis have been published - one reported genome-wide association of GLT6D1 with aggressive periodontitis (a severe phenotype of periodontitis), whereas the remaining two, which were performed on patients with chronic periodontitis, were not able to find significant associations. This review discusses the problems faced and the lessons learned from the search for genetic risk variants of periodontitis. Current and future strategies for identifying genetic variance in periodontitis, and the importance of planning a well-designed genetic study with large and sufficiently powered case-control samples of severe phenotypes, are also discussed.
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.