19 resultados para Daniel Rubio Sánchez
em Université de Lausanne, Switzerland
Resumo:
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.
Resumo:
Der Beitrag untersucht Handschriften mit weltlichen Texten, die sich aus der geistlichen Büchersammlung des Spiritualisten und Schwenckfeld-Anhängers Daniel Sudermann (1550-ca. 1631) erhalten haben oder für diese Sammlung erschlossen werden können. Anhand von Lektürenotizen Sudermanns in seinen Handschriften sowie einem kommentierten Bücherverzeichnis, aber auch anhand von inhaltlichen Bezügen der Texte untereinander werden mögliche Anziehungspunkte und konkrete Leseinteressen rekonstruiert, die Sudermann mit der Profanliteratur des Mittelalters verbunden haben könnte. Dabei erweist sich, daß Sudermann die weltliche Romanliteratur des Mittelalters entgegen der bisherigen Einschätzung durchaus gewürdigt hat. Allerdings las er sie nicht mit der Faszination an der Fiktion, die ihren mittelalterlichen Lesern zuzutrauen ist, sondern rezipierte sie im Sinne historischer Quellen, wobei zwei Interessenschwerpunkte zu identifizieren sind: Sudermann beschäftigte sich mit der fabulösen Frühgeschichte des Christentums in Indien, an die eine große Mehrzahl der aus seinem Besitz bekannten weltlichen Texte direkt oder indirekt anschließt. Daneben galt seine Aufmerksamkeit adelsgenealogischen Informationen, die er der mittelalterlichen Romanliteratur entnehmen zu können glaubte. Den Aufsatz begleitet ein Faksimileabdruck von Sudermanns Autograph des kommentierten Bücherverzeichnisses.
