다중혈관 관상동맥 환자에서 y-문합을 이용하여 양쪽 내흉동맥만을 사용한 우회술의 조기 성적

[신간의 별자리x] 우리/미술, 그리고 ‘슬픔의 박물관’

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 flux 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, 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. 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 target by gene knockout or RNA interference more than one autophagy-related protein. In addition, some individual Atg proteins, or groups of proteins, are involved in other cellular pathways implying that 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 assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field.

/pdf/guidelines-for-the-use-and-interpretation-of-assays-for-ijf2t30pbq.pdf

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. 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.

/pdf/guidelines-for-the-use-and-interpretation-of-assays-for-28d1pi1jvo.pdf

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

Over the past decade, the Nomenclature Committee on Cell Death (NCCD) has formulated guidelines for the definition and interpretation of cell death from morphological, biochemical, and functional perspectives. Since the field continues to expand and novel mechanisms that orchestrate multiple cell death pathways are unveiled, we propose an updated classification of cell death subroutines focusing on mechanistic and essential (as opposed to correlative and dispensable) aspects of the process. As we provide molecularly oriented definitions of terms including intrinsic apoptosis, extrinsic apoptosis, mitochondrial permeability transition (MPT)-driven necrosis, necroptosis, ferroptosis, pyroptosis, parthanatos, entotic cell death, NETotic cell death, lysosome-dependent cell death, autophagy-dependent cell death, immunogenic cell death, cellular senescence, and mitotic catastrophe, we discuss the utility of neologisms that refer to highly specialized instances of these processes. The mission of the NCCD is to provide a widely accepted nomenclature on cell death in support of the continued development of the field.

https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/8555786/file/8555788.pdf

Molecular mechanisms of cell death: recommendations of the Nomenclature Committee on Cell Death 2018.

OBJECTIVES
To assess the prevalence of autoantibodies (AAbs) in mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients and to investigate whether AAbs influence the clinical outcome.


METHODS
Serum samples were drawn within the first 48 hours upon admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) from 217 consecutive patients, from January 1st, 2021, to May 10th, 2021, and investigated for the presence of AAbs using conventional techniques. Serum samples (n=117) of age- and sex-matched healthy individuals collected before COVID-19 pandemic were used as controls.


RESULTS
COVID-19 patients in the ICU had more commonly AAbs compared to age- and sex-matched controls (174/217, 80.2% vs. 73/117, 62.4%, p<0.001). Patients expressed more frequently ANAs (48.4% vs. 21.4%, p<0.001), anti-dsDNA (5.1% vs. 0%, p=0.01), anti-CCP (8.3% vs. 1.7%, p=0.014) and anti-CL IgM AAbs (21.7% vs. 9.4%, p=0.005) than controls, respectively. Simultaneous reactivity against at least three autoantigens, occurred in 144 out of 174 (82.8%) patients. The two groups did not differ in terms of clinicoepidemiologic characteristics or the mortality ratio within the ICU. Patients who died compared to convalescents were older, had higher ferritin, D-dimers levels, APACHE II score, lower oxygen saturation, higher prevalence of comorbidities and cognitive dysfunction. However, AAbs were not found to correlate with the clinical outcome.


CONCLUSIONS
Patients with severe COVID-19 express AAbs more commonly compared to controls. No correlation was found between AAbs and disease outcome.

Incidence of autoantibodies related to systemic autoimmunity in patients with severe COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit.

© Biotarget. All rights reserved. Biotarget 2020 | http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/biotarget.2020.01.02 Ulcerative colitis (UC) constitutes a chronic relapsing inflammatory disease of the colonic mucosa with increasing incidence in all ages that imparts significant morbidity; As therapeutic options remain limited, UC urges as an important health concern worldwide (1,2). Along with Crohn’s disease (CD) represent the two main types of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Besides their phenotypic similarities there are substantial differences between UC and CD. Inflammation pattern in UC is uninterrupted and is restricted to colonic mucosa, while in CD is patchy and may affect any part of the gastrointestinal tract in a transmural fashion often leading to fibrotic complications. These differences probably reflect the distinctive cellular mechanisms and pathways underlining their respective pathogenesis (3,4). Despite extensive investigations over the last years the pathogenesis of UC remains incompletely understood. It is suggested that complex interactions among genetic, immune, microbial and environmental factors disrupt the homeostatic mechanisms in colonic mucosa leading to disease development. Today, there is a pressing need for a better understanding of UC pathogenesis that will provide novel molecular mechanisms and targets permitting tailored therapeutic approaches to individual patients with UC (1,3,4). To this end, several different approaches have been used in order to nominate candidate molecular pathways in the pathogenesis of inflammation in UC and reveal biomarkers that can predict disease relapse or response to treatment. In hypothesis-driven studies, several candidate genes, proteins, and/or cell populations have been analyzed at intestinal tissue level or in peripheral blood in an attempt to correlate UC clinical traits with certain molecular characteristics. Over the last years, these approaches have proposed a variety of molecular mechanisms offering potential models responsible for gut inflammation in UC (3,4); however they did not fully elucidate the pathophysiology of this complex disease. It seems puzzling over how to assess different cell populations and molecules that dynamically interplay in the continuously altered microenvironment of inflamed intestinal mucosa of UC. On the other hand, in the new “omics era”, highthroughput, discovery-driven approaches such as genomics, transcriptomics, proteomics and metabolomics have emerged providing a deeper and more comprehensive analysis of molecular biology of UC (5-8). Numerous bioinformatics-based tools have been developed to explore and integrate the huge amount of data generated by multi“omics” profiling, aiming at characterizing the molecular “UC interactome” (Figure 1). Recently, Smillie et al. (9), used a novel approach by applying single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) analysis Editorial Commentary

/pdf/a-gene-expression-map-of-colon-tissue-in-ulcerative-colitis-1rzknoipyd.pdf

A gene expression map of colon tissue in ulcerative colitis: new methods rewrite old stories

Multiple splenic macronodular tuberculomas: MRI characteristics under treatment.

COVID-19-related severe respiratory failure (SRF) leads to mechanical ventilation increasing the in-hospital mortality substantially. Abundancy of lung fibroblasts (LFs) in injured lung tissue has been associated with the progression of respiratory failure in COVID-19. Aiming to reduce mortality in patients with SRF (PaO2/FiO2&lt;100 mmHg) and considering the multi-mechanistic nature of severe COVID-19 pathogenesis, we applied a combined rescue treatment (COMBI) on top of standard-of-care (SOC: dexamethasone and heparin) comprised inhaled DNase to dissolve thrombogenic neutrophil extracellular traps, plus agents against cytokine-mediated hyperinflammation, such as anti-IL-6 receptor tocilizumab and selective JAK1/2 inhibitor baricitinib. COMBI (n=22) was compared with SOC (n= 26), and with two previously and consecutively used therapeutic approaches, including either IL-1 receptor antagonist anakinra (ANA, n=19), or tocilizumab (TOCI, n=11), on top of SOC. In parallel, evaluation of immunothrombosis was assessed in vitro in human LFs, treated with the applied therapeutic agents upon stimulation with COVID-19 plasma. COMBI was associated with lower in-hospital mortality (p=0.014) and intubation rate (p=0.013), shorter duration of hospitalization (p=0.019), and prolonged overall survival after a median follow-up of 110+/-4 days (p=0.003). In vitro, COVID-19 plasma markedly induced tissue factor/thrombin pathway in LFs, while this effect was inhibited by the immunomodulatory agents of COMBI providing a mechanistic explanation for the clinical observations. These results suggest the design of randomized trials using combined immunomodulatory therapies in COVID-19-associated SRF targeting multiple interconnected pathways of immunothrombosis. 

Combined administration of inhaled DNase, baricitinib and tocilizumab as rescue treatment in COVID-19 patients with severe respiratory failure

Investigation of Neutrophil Extracellular Trap (NET) Induction in Patients with Chronic Idiopathic Neutropenia Bearing Mutations in the Mediterranean Fever (MEFV) Gene

Konstantinos Ritis

Papers

Incidence of autoantibodies related to systemic autoimmunity in patients with severe COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit.

A gene expression map of colon tissue in ulcerative colitis: new methods rewrite old stories

Multiple splenic macronodular tuberculomas: MRI characteristics under treatment.

Combined administration of inhaled DNase, baricitinib and tocilizumab as rescue treatment in COVID-19 patients with severe respiratory failure

Investigation of Neutrophil Extracellular Trap (NET) Induction in Patients with Chronic Idiopathic Neutropenia Bearing Mutations in the Mediterranean Fever (MEFV) Gene