Institution
Jikei University School of Medicine
Education•Tokyo, Japan•
About: Jikei University School of Medicine is a education organization based out in Tokyo, Japan. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Medicine & Cancer. The organization has 8893 authors who have published 15102 publications receiving 316606 citations. The organization is also known as: Tōkyō jikei kai ika daigaku.
Topics: Medicine, Cancer, Transplantation, Population, Diabetes mellitus
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macro-autophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes.
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.
5,187 citations
••
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven1, Ghent University2, Karolinska Institutet3, Cairo University4, University of São Paulo5, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center6, Innsbruck Medical University7, University of Duisburg-Essen8, Tufts University9, University of Aberdeen10, University of California, San Diego11, University College Dublin12, University of the Witwatersrand13, Brown University14, Heidelberg University15, Jikei University School of Medicine16
4,482 citations
••
Daniel J. Klionsky1, Fábio Camargo Abdalla2, Hagai Abeliovich3, Robert T. Abraham4 +1284 more•Institutions (463)
TL;DR: These guidelines are presented 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.
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. 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.
4,316 citations
••
Broad Institute1, Harvard University2, Novartis3, Brigham and Women's Hospital4, Jikei University School of Medicine5, Boston Children's Hospital6, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill7, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center8, Nagoya City University9, Autonomous University of Barcelona10, University Health Network11, Cornell University12, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center13, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center14, University of Pennsylvania15, University of Michigan16, University of Washington Medical Center17, Howard Hughes Medical Institute18, Massachusetts Institute of Technology19
TL;DR: It is demonstrated that cancer cells containing amplifications surrounding the MCL1 and BCL2L1 anti-apoptotic genes depend on the expression of these genes for survival, and a large majority of SCNAs identified in individual cancer types are present in several cancer types.
Abstract: A powerful way to discover key genes with causal roles in oncogenesis is to identify genomic regions that undergo frequent alteration in human cancers. Here we present high-resolution analyses of somatic copy-number alterations (SCNAs) from 3,131 cancer specimens, belonging largely to 26 histological types. We identify 158 regions of focal SCNA that are altered at significant frequency across several cancer types, of which 122 cannot be explained by the presence of a known cancer target gene located within these regions. Several gene families are enriched among these regions of focal SCNA, including the BCL2 family of apoptosis regulators and the NF-kappaBeta pathway. We show that cancer cells containing amplifications surrounding the MCL1 and BCL2L1 anti-apoptotic genes depend on the expression of these genes for survival. Finally, we demonstrate that a large majority of SCNAs identified in individual cancer types are present in several cancer types.
3,375 citations
••
TL;DR: Results indicate that miRNA expression profiles are diagnostic and prognostic markers of lung cancer.
3,135 citations
Authors
Showing all 8922 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
Yusuke Nakamura | 179 | 2076 | 160313 |
Kenneth C. Anderson | 178 | 1138 | 126072 |
Keiji Tanaka | 129 | 594 | 82885 |
Hideyuki Okano | 128 | 1169 | 67148 |
Ashok Agarwal | 125 | 1147 | 56052 |
Donald Kufe | 121 | 681 | 49343 |
Frank M. Sacks | 120 | 490 | 80422 |
Masao Omata | 111 | 990 | 49271 |
Shoichiro Tsukita | 110 | 225 | 48271 |
Peter McL. Black | 110 | 653 | 42666 |
Tatsuhiko Tsunoda | 106 | 386 | 53517 |
Dharminder Chauhan | 101 | 343 | 36111 |
Roger A. Warnke | 100 | 389 | 43785 |
Agnes B. Fogo | 98 | 578 | 38840 |
Michael L. Cleary | 96 | 236 | 35398 |