Publications
130 results found
Denny S, Abdolrasouli A, Elamin T, et al., 2021, A retrospective multicenter analysis of candidaemia among COVID-19 patients during the first UK pandemic wave, Journal of Infection, Vol: 82, Pages: 276-316, ISSN: 0163-4453
Arkell P, Mahboobani S, Wilson R, et al., 2021, Bronchoalveolar lavage fluid IMMY Sona <i>Aspergillus</i> lateral-flow assay for the diagnosis of invasive pulmonary aspergillosis: a prospective, real life evaluation, MEDICAL MYCOLOGY, Vol: 59, Pages: 404-408, ISSN: 1369-3786
- Author Web Link
- Cite
- Citations: 3
Williams TJ, Gonzales-Huerta LE, Armstrong-James D, 2021, Fungal-induced programmed cell death, Journal of Fungi, Vol: 7, Pages: 1-15, ISSN: 2309-608X
Fungal infections are a cause of morbidity in humans, and despite the availability of a range of antifungal treatments, the mortality rate remains unacceptably high. Although our knowledge of the interactions between pathogenic fungi and the host continues to grow, further research is still required to fully understand the mechanism underpinning fungal pathogenicity, which may provide new insights for the treatment of fungal disease. There is great interest regarding how microbes induce programmed cell death and what this means in terms of the immune response and resolution of infection as well as microbe-specific mechanisms that influence cell death pathways to aid in their survival and continued infection. Here, we discuss how programmed cell death is induced by fungi that commonly cause opportunistic infections, including Candida albicans, Aspergillus fumigatus, and Cryptococcus neoformans, the role of programmed cell death in fungal immunity, and how fungi manipulate these pathways.
Klionsky DJ, Abdel-Aziz AK, Abdelfatah S, et al., 2021, Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition), Autophagy, Vol: 17, Pages: 1-382, ISSN: 1554-8627
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.
Hughes DA, Cuthbertson L, Price H, et al., 2021, PSEUDOMONAS AERUGINOSA IMPAIRS GROWTH OF ASPERGILLUS FROM CF AIRWAY SAMPLES, Publisher: BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP, Pages: A159-A159, ISSN: 0040-6376
This data is extracted from the Web of Science and reproduced under a licence from Thomson Reuters. You may not copy or re-distribute this data in whole or in part without the written consent of the Science business of Thomson Reuters.