4.7 Review

Classification of cell death: recommendations of the Nomenclature Committee on Cell Death 2009

期刊

CELL DEATH AND DIFFERENTIATION
卷 16, 期 1, 页码 3-11

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/cdd.2008.150

关键词

apoptosis; autophagy; comification; excitotoxicity; necrosis; Wallerian degeneration

资金

  1. Medical Research Council [MC_U132670600] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NEI NIH HHS [R01 EY005477-24, R01 EY005477] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NIGMS NIH HHS [R01 GM059136-10, R56 GM072124, R01 GM059136, R01 GM079431-04, R01 GM079431] Funding Source: Medline
  4. NATIONAL EYE INSTITUTE [R01EY005477] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  5. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF GENERAL MEDICAL SCIENCES [R01GM079431, R01GM059136, R56GM072124] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  6. MRC [MC_U132670600] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Different types of cell death are often defined by morphological criteria, without a clear reference to precise biochemical mechanisms. The Nomenclature Committee on Cell Death (NCCD) proposes unified criteria for the definition of cell death and of its different morphologies, while formulating several caveats against the misuse of words and concepts that slow down progress in the area of cell death research. Authors, reviewers and editors of scientific periodicals are invited to abandon expressions like 'percentage apoptosis' and to replace them with more accurate descriptions of the biochemical and cellular parameters that are actually measured. Moreover, at the present stage, it should be accepted that caspase-independent mechanisms can cooperate with (or substitute for) caspases in the execution of lethal signaling pathways and that 'autophagic cell death' is a type of cell death occurring together with (but not necessarily by) autophagic vacuolization. This study details the 2009 recommendations of the NCCD on the use of cell death-related terminology including 'entosis', 'mitotic catastrophe', 'necrosis', 'necroptosis' and 'pyroptosis'.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据