Éditeur(s) : HAL CCSD Landes Bioscience
Résumé : International audience
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.
Autophagy

hal-00735751
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00735751
PUBMED : 22966490

Éditeur(s) : HAL CCSD
Résumé : International audience
MOTIVATION: Imaging mass spectrometry (IMS) is a maturating technique of molecular imaging. Confidence in the reproducible quality of IMS data is essential for its integration into routine use. However, the predominant method for assessing quality is visual examination, a time consuming, unstandardized and non-scalable approach. So far, the problem of assessing the quality has only been marginally addressed and existing measures do not account for the spatial information of IMS data. Importantly, no approach exists for unbiased evaluation of potential quality measures. RESULTS: We propose a novel approach for evaluating potential measures by creating a gold-standard set using collective expert judgements upon which we evaluated image-based measures. To produce a gold standard, we engaged 80 IMS experts, each to rate the relative quality between 52 pairs of ion images from MALDI-TOF IMS datasets of rat brain coronal sections. Experts' optional feedback on their expertise, the task and the survey showed that (i) they had diverse backgrounds and sufficient expertise, (ii) the task was properly understood, and (iii) the survey was comprehensible. A moderate inter-rater agreement was achieved with Krippendorff's alpha of 0.5. A gold-standard set of 634 pairs of images with accompanying ratings was constructed and showed a high agreement of 0.85. Eight families of potential measures with a range of parameters and statistical descriptors, giving 143 in total, were evaluated. Both signal-to-noise and spatial chaos-based measures performed highly with a correlation of 0.7 to 0.9 with the gold standard ratings. Moreover, we showed that a composite measure with the linear coefficients (trained on the gold standard with regularized least squares optimization and lasso) showed a strong linear correlation of 0.94 and an accuracy of 0.98 in predicting which image in a pair was of higher quality. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: The anonymized data collected from the survey and the Matlab source code for data processing can be found at: https://github.com/alexandrovteam/IMS_quality. CONTACT: theodore.alexandrov@embl.de
Bioinformatics (Oxford, England)

hal-01163754
https://hal-univ-rennes1.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01163754
DOI : 10.1093/bioinformatics/btv266
PUBMED : 26072506

Éditeur(s) : HAL CCSD Oxford University Press
Résumé : International audience
ISSN: 1369-3786

hal-01118199
https://hal-univ-rennes1.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01118199
DOI : 10.3109/13693786.2010.511287
PUBMED : 21067335