Central University of Venezuela

About: Central University of Venezuela is a education organization based out in Caracas, Venezuela. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Catalysis. The organization has 9760 authors who have published 12531 publications receiving 213927 citations. The organization is also known as: Universidad Central de Venezuela & UCV.

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition)

Abstract: 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.

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy in higher eukaryotes

Abstract: Research in autophagy continues to accelerate,(1) and as a result many new scientists are entering the field Accordingly, it is important to establish a standard set of criteria for monitoring macroautophagy in different organisms Recent reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose(2,3) There are many useful and convenient methods that can be used to monitor macroautophagy in yeast, but relatively few in other model systems, and there is much confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure macroautophagy in higher eukaryotes A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers of autophagosomes versus those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway; thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from fully functional autophagy that includes delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi) Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of the methods that can be used by investigators who are attempting to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as by reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that investigate these processes This set of guidelines is 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 verify an autophagic response

Human papillomavirus genotype attribution in invasive cervical cancer: a retrospective cross-sectional worldwide study

Abstract: Summary Background Knowledge about the distribution of human papillomavirus (HPV) genotypes in invasive cervical cancer is crucial to guide the introduction of prophylactic vaccines. We aimed to provide novel and comprehensive data about the worldwide genotype distribution in patients with invasive cervical cancer. Methods Paraffin-embedded samples of histologically confirmed cases of invasive cervical cancer were collected from 38 countries in Europe, North America, central South America, Africa, Asia, and Oceania. Inclusion criteria were a pathological confirmation of a primary invasive cervical cancer of epithelial origin in the tissue sample selected for analysis of HPV DNA, and information about the year of diagnosis. HPV detection was done by use of PCR with SPF-10 broad-spectrum primers followed by DNA enzyme immunoassay and genotyping with a reverse hybridisation line probe assay. Sequence analysis was done to characterise HPV-positive samples with unknown HPV types. Data analyses included algorithms of multiple infections to estimate type-specific relative contributions. Findings 22 661 paraffin-embedded samples were obtained from 14 249 women. 10 575 cases of invasive cervical cancer were included in the study, and 8977 (85%) of these were positive for HPV DNA. The most common HPV types were 16, 18, 31, 33, 35, 45, 52, and 58 with a combined worldwide relative contribution of 8196 of 8977 (91%, 95% CI 90–92). HPV types 16 and 18 were detected in 6357 of 8977 of cases (71%, 70–72) of invasive cervical cancer. HPV types 16, 18, and 45 were detected in 443 of 470 cases (94%, 92–96) of cervical adenocarcinomas. Unknown HPV types that were identified with sequence analysis were 26, 30, 61, 67, 69, 82, and 91 in 103 (1%) of 8977 cases of invasive cervical cancer. Women with invasive cervical cancers related to HPV types 16, 18, or 45 presented at a younger mean age than did those with other HPV types (50·0 years [49·6–50·4], 48·2 years [47·3–49·2], 46·8 years [46·6–48·1], and 55·5 years [54·9–56·1], respectively). Interpretation To our knowledge, this study is the largest assessment of HPV genotypes to date. HPV types 16, 18, 31, 33, 35, 45, 52, and 58 should be given priority when the cross-protective effects of current vaccines are assessed, and for formulation of recommendations for the use of second-generation polyvalent HPV vaccines. Our results also suggest that type-specific high-risk HPV-DNA-based screening tests and protocols should focus on HPV types 16, 18, and 45. Funding Spanish grants from Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Agencia de Gestio d'Ajuts Universitaris i de Recerca, Marato de TV3 Foundation, and unrestricted grants from GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals, Sanofi Pasteur MSD, and Merck.