Displaying all 2 publications

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. Identification of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease subgroups in 13 Asian cities
    Kim WJ, Gupta V, Nishimura M, Makita H, Idolor L, Roa C, et al.
    Int J Tuberc Lung Dis, 2018 07 01;22(7):820-826.
    PMID: 29914609 DOI: 10.5588/ijtld.17.0524
    BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a heterogeneous condition that can differ in its clinical manifestation, structural changes and response to treatment.

    OBJECTIVE: To identify subgroups of COPD with distinct phenotypes, evaluate the distribution of phenotypes in four related regions and calculate the 1-year change in lung function and quality of life according to subgroup.

    METHODS: Using clinical characteristics, we performed factor analysis and hierarchical cluster analysis in a cohort of 1676 COPD patients from 13 Asian cities. We compared the 1-year change in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), modified Medical Research Council dyspnoea scale score, St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) score and exacerbations according to subgroup derived from cluster analysis.

    RESULTS: Factor analysis revealed that body mass index, Charlson comorbidity index, SGRQ total score and FEV1 were principal factors. Using these four factors, cluster analysis identified three distinct subgroups with differing disease severity and symptoms. Among the three subgroups, patients in subgroup 2 (severe disease and more symptoms) had the most frequent exacerbations, most rapid FEV1 decline and greatest decline in SGRQ total score.

    CONCLUSION: Three subgroups with differing severities and symptoms were identified in Asian COPD subjects.

  2. Fulltext Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)1
    Klionsky DJ, Abdel-Aziz AK, Abdelfatah S, Abdellatif M, Abdoli A, Abel S, et al.
    Autophagy, 2021 Jan;17(1):1-382.
    PMID: 33634751 DOI: 10.1080/15548627.2020.1797280
    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.
Related Terms
    Try searching for something
Filters
Contact Us

Please provide feedback to Administrator ([email protected])

External Links