Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy in higher eukaryotes
Autophagy, ISSN: 1554-8635, Vol: 4, Issue: 2, Page: 151-175
2008
- 1,222Citations
- 810Usage
- 1,100Captures
- 1Mentions
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations1,222
- Citation Indexes1,220
- 1,220
- CrossRef1,136
- Clinical Citations2
- PubMed Guidelines2
- Usage810
- Downloads799
- Abstract Views11
- Captures1,100
- Readers1,100
- 1,094
- Mentions1
- Blog Mentions1
- Blog1
Review Description
Research in autophagy continues to accelerate,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.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. ©2008 Landes Bioscience.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=38949108670&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.4161/auto.5338; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18188003; http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.4161/auto.5338; https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/gdcb_las_pubs/124; https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1130&context=gdcb_las_pubs; http://ntur.lib.ntu.edu.tw/handle/246246/245903; http://europepmc.org/abstract/med/18188003; http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC2654259
Informa UK Limited
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know