Griffith University

Disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) for 291 diseases and injuries in 21 regions, 1990–2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010

Years lived with disability (YLDs) for 1160 sequelae of 289 diseases and injuries 1990–2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition)

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 thatthere 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 completeprocess 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 increasedautophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (inmost 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 manycases, 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 forreviewers 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 multipleassays 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 autophagyrelated 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.

The Global Burden of Cancer 2013

IMPORTANCE: Cancer is among the leading causes of death worldwide. Current estimates of cancer burden in individual countries and regions are necessary to inform local cancer control strategies. OBJECTIVE: To estimate mortality, incidence, years lived with disability (YLDs), years of life lost (YLLs), and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) for 28 cancers in 188 countries by sex from 1990 to 2013. EVIDENCE REVIEW: The general methodology of the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2013 study was used. Cancer registries were the source for cancer incidence data as well as mortality incidence (MI) ratios. Sources for cause of death data include vital registration system data, verbal autopsy studies, and other sources. The MI ratios were used to transform incidence data to mortality estimates and cause of death estimates to incidence estimates. Cancer prevalence was estimated using MI ratios as surrogates for survival data; YLDs were calculated by multiplying prevalence estimates with disability weights, which were derived from population-based surveys; YLLs were computed by multiplying the number of estimated cancer deaths at each age with a reference life expectancy; and DALYs were calculated as the sum of YLDs and YLLs. FINDINGS: In 2013 there were 14.9 million incident cancer cases, 8.2 million deaths, and 196.3 million DALYs. Prostate cancer was the leading cause for cancer incidence (1.4 million) for men and breast cancer for women (1.8 million). Tracheal, bronchus, and lung (TBL) cancer was the leading cause for cancer death in men and women, with 1.6 million deaths. For men, TBL cancer was the leading cause of DALYs (24.9 million). For women, breast cancer was the leading cause of DALYs (13.1 million). Age-standardized incidence rates (ASIRs) per 100 000 and age-standardized death rates (ASDRs) per 100 000 for both sexes in 2013 were higher in developing vs developed countries for stomach cancer (ASIR, 17 vs 14; ASDR, 15 vs 11), liver cancer (ASIR, 15 vs 7; ASDR, 16 vs 7), esophageal cancer (ASIR, 9 vs 4; ASDR, 9 vs 4), cervical cancer (ASIR, 8 vs 5; ASDR, 4 vs 2), lip and oral cavity cancer (ASIR, 7 vs 6; ASDR, 2 vs 2), and nasopharyngeal cancer (ASIR, 1.5 vs 0.4; ASDR, 1.2 vs 0.3). Between 1990 and 2013, ASIRs for all cancers combined (except nonmelanoma skin cancer and Kaposi sarcoma) increased by more than 10% in 113 countries and decreased by more than 10% in 12 of 188 countries. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Cancer poses a major threat to public health worldwide, and incidence rates have increased in most countries since 1990. The trend is a particular threat to developing nations with health systems that are ill-equipped to deal with complex and expensive cancer treatments. The annual update on the Global Burden of Cancer will provide all stakeholders with timely estimates to guide policy efforts in cancer prevention, screening, treatment, and palliation.

Sustainability Science

Meeting fundamental human needs while preserving Earth's life support systems will require an accelerated transition toward sustainability. A new field of sustainability science is emerging that seeks to understand the fundamental character of interactions between nature and society and to encourage those interactions along more sustainable trajectories. Such an integrated, place-based science will require new research strategies and institutional innovations to enable them especially in developing countries still separated by deepening divides from mainstream science. Sustainability science needs to be widely discussed in the scientific community, reconnected to the political agenda for sustainable development, and become a major focus for research.

Global, regional, and national levels and causes of maternal mortality during 1990–2013: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013

The global burden of injury: incidence, mortality, disability-adjusted life years and time trends from the Global Burden of Disease study 2013

BACKGROUND: The Global Burden of Diseases (GBD), Injuries, and Risk Factors study used the disability-adjusted life year (DALY) to quantify the burden of diseases, injuries, and risk factors. This paper provides an overview of injury estimates from the 2013 update of GBD, with detailed information on incidence, mortality, DALYs and rates of change from 1990 to 2013 for 26 causes of injury, globally, by region and by country. METHODS: Injury mortality was estimated using the extensive GBD mortality database, corrections for ill-defined cause of death and the cause of death ensemble modelling tool. Morbidity estimation was based on inpatient and outpatient data sets, 26 cause-of-injury and 47 nature-of-injury categories, and seven follow-up studies with patient-reported long-term outcome measures. RESULTS: In 2013, 973 million (uncertainty interval (UI) 942 to 993) people sustained injuries that warranted some type of healthcare and 4.8 million (UI 4.5 to 5.1) people died from injuries. Between 1990 and 2013 the global age-standardised injury DALY rate decreased by 31% (UI 26% to 35%). The rate of decline in DALY rates was significant for 22 cause-of-injury categories, including all the major injuries. CONCLUSIONS: Injuries continue to be an important cause of morbidity and mortality in the developed and developing world. The decline in rates for almost all injuries is so prominent that it warrants a general statement that the world is becoming a safer place to live in. However, the patterns vary widely by cause, age, sex, region and time and there are still large improvements that need to be made.

Chikungunya virus: an update on the biology and pathogenesis of this emerging pathogen