University of Arkansas System

About: University of Arkansas System is a education organization based out in Little Rock, Arkansas, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Gene. The organization has 369 authors who have published 339 publications receiving 16550 citations.

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 (4th edition)

Abstract: In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field.

Revised Nomenclature for Avian Telencephalon and Some Related Brainstem Nuclei

Abstract: The standard nomenclature that has been used for many telencephalic and related brainstem structures in birds is based on flawed assumptions of homology to mammals. In particular, the outdated terminology implies that most of the avian telencephalon is a hypertrophied basal ganglia, when it is now clear that most of the avian telencephalon is neurochemically, hodologically, and functionally comparable to the mammalian neocortex, claustrum, and pallial amygdala (all of which derive from the pallial sector of the developing telencephalon). Recognizing that this promotes misunderstanding of the functional organization of avian brains and their evolutionary relationship to mammalian brains, avian brain specialists began discussions to rectify this problem, culminating in the Avian Brain Nomenclature Forum held at Duke University in July 2002, which approved a new terminology for avian telencephalon and some allied brainstem cell groups. Details of this new terminology are presented here, as is a rationale for each name change and evidence for any homologies implied by the new names. Revisions for the brainstem focused on vocal control, catecholaminergic, cholinergic, and basal ganglia-related nuclei. For example, the Forum recognized that the hypoglossal nucleus had been incorrectly identified as the nucleus intermedius in the Karten and Hodos (1967) pigeon brain atlas, and what was identified as the hypoglossal nucleus in that atlas should instead be called the supraspinal nucleus. The locus ceruleus of this and other avian atlases was noted to consist of a caudal noradrenergic part homologous to the mammalian locus coeruleus and a rostral region corresponding to the mammalian A8 dopaminergic cell group. The midbrain dopaminergic cell group in birds known as the nucleus tegmenti pedunculopontinus pars compacta was recognized as homologous to the mammalian substantia nigra pars compacta and was renamed accordingly; a group of gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA)ergic neurons at the lateral edge of this region was identified as homologous to the mammalian substantia nigra pars reticulata and was also renamed accordingly. A field of cholinergic neurons in the rostral avian hindbrain was named the nucleus pedunculopontinus tegmenti, whereas the anterior nucleus of the ansa lenticularis in the avian diencephalon was renamed the subthalamic nucleus, both for their evident mammalian homologues. For the basal (i.e., subpallial) telencephalon, the actual parts of the basal ganglia were given names reflecting their now evident homologues. For example, the lobus parolfactorius and paleostriatum augmentatum were acknowledged to make up the dorsal subdivision of the striatal part of the basal ganglia and were renamed as the medial and lateral striatum. The paleostriatum primitivum was recognized as homologous to the mammalian globus pallidus and renamed as such. Additionally, the rostroventral part of what was called the lobus parolfactorius was acknowledged as comparable to the mammalian nucleus accumbens, which, together with the olfactory tubercle, was noted to be part of the ventral striatum in birds. A ventral pallidum, a basal cholinergic cell group, and medial and lateral bed nuclei of the stria terminalis were also recognized. The dorsal (i.e., pallial) telencephalic regions that had been erroneously named to reflect presumed homology to striatal parts of mammalian basal ganglia were renamed as part of the pallium, using prefixes that retain most established abbreviations, to maintain continuity with the outdated nomenclature. We concluded, however, that one-to-one (i.e., discrete) homologies with mammals are still uncertain for most of the telencephalic pallium in birds and thus the new pallial terminology is largely devoid of assumptions of one-to-one homologies with mammals. The sectors of the hyperstriatum composing the Wulst (i.e., the hyperstriatum accessorium intermedium, and dorsale), the hyperstriatum ventrale, the neostriatum, and the archistriatum have been renamed (respectively) the hyperpallium (hypertrophied pallium), the mesopallium (middle pallium), the nidopallium (nest pallium), and the arcopallium (arched pallium). The posterior part of the archistriatum has been renamed the posterior pallial amygdala, the nucleus taeniae recognized as part of the avian amygdala, and a region inferior to the posterior paleostriatum primitivum included as a subpallial part of the avian amygdala. The names of some of the laminae and fiber tracts were also changed to reflect current understanding of the location of pallial and subpallial sectors of the avian telencephalon. Notably, the lamina medularis dorsalis has been renamed the pallial-subpallial lamina. We urge all to use this new terminology, because we believe it will promote better communication among neuroscientists. Further information is available at http://avianbrain.org

Q-Chem 2.0: a high-performance ab initio electronic structure program package

Abstract: Q-Chem 2.0 is a new release of an electronic structure programpackage, capable of performing first principles calculations on the ground andexcited states of molecules using both density functional theory and wavefunction-based methods. A review of the technical features contained withinQ-Chem 2.0 is presented. This article contains brief descriptive discussions of thekey physical features of all new algorithms and theoretical models, together withsample calculations that illustrate their performance. c 2000 John Wiley S electronic structure; density functional theory;computer program; computational chemistry Introduction A reader glancing casually at this article mightsuspect on the basis of its title that it is a thinlydisguised piece of marketing for a program pack-age. This is not the case. Rather, it is an attemptto document the key methodologies and algorithmsof our electronic structure program package, Q-Chem 2.0, in a complete and scientifically accurateway, with full references to the original literature.This is important for two principal reasons. First,while the use of electronic structure programs isburgeoning, many users of such programs do nothave much feel for the underlying algorithms thatmake large-scale calculations routine even on suchreadily available hardware as personal computers.Therefore, a link between the program package andthe original literature that is written at the level ofan introductory overview can be a useful bridge.Second, while citations of large-scale commercialprograms in published applications are tradition-ally part of the conditions of use of such codes, they

Blunt splenic injury in adults: Multi-institutional Study of the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma.

Abstract: Background: Nonoperative management of blunt injury to the spleen in adults has been applied with increasing frequency. However, the criteria for nonoperative management are controversial. The purpose of this multi-institutional study was to determine which factors predict successful observation of blunt splenic injury in adults. Methods: A total of 1,488 adults (>15 years of age) with blunt splenic injury from 27 trauma centers in 1997 were studied through the Multi-institutional Trials Committee of the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma. Statistical analysis was performed with analysis of variance and extended X 2 test. Data are expressed as mean ± SD; a value of p 15 were successfully observed. Frequency of immediate operation correlated with American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) grades of splenic injury: I (23.9%), II (22.4%), III (38.1%), IV (73.7%), and V (94.9%) (p < 0.05). Of patients initially managed nonoperatively, the failure rate increased significantly by AAST grade of splenic injury: I (4.8%), II (9.5%), III (19.6%), IV (33.3%), and V (75.0%) (p < 0.05). A total of 60.9% of the patients failed nonoperative management within 24 hours of admission; 8% failed 9 days or later after injury. Laparotomy was ultimately performed in 19.9% of patients with small hemoperitoneum, 49.4% of patients with moderate hemoperitoneum, and 72.6% of patients with large hemoperitoneum. Conclusion: In this multicenter study, 38.5% of adults with blunt splenic injury went directly to laparotomy. Ultimately, 54.8% of patients were successfully managed nonoperatively; the failure rate of planned observation was 10.8%, with 60.9% of failures occurring in the first 24 hours. Successful nonoperative management was associated with higher blood pressure and hematocrit, and less severe injury based on ISS, Glasgow Coma Scale, grade of splenic injury, and quantity of hemoperitoneum.