scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Institution

Casa Sollievo della Sofferenza

HealthcareSan Giovanni Rotondo, Italy
About: Casa Sollievo della Sofferenza is a healthcare organization based out in San Giovanni Rotondo, Italy. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Cancer. The organization has 2234 authors who have published 6183 publications receiving 239811 citations. The organization is also known as: Home for Relief of the Suffering.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
Daniel J. Klionsky1, Kotb Abdelmohsen2, Akihisa Abe3, Joynal Abedin4  +2519 moreInstitutions (695)
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macro-autophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes.
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.

5,187 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: These guidelines are presented 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.
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. 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 vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased 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. 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. 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 autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field.

4,316 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
Luke Jostins1, Stephan Ripke2, Rinse K. Weersma3, Richard H. Duerr4, Dermot P.B. McGovern5, Ken Y. Hui6, James Lee7, L. Philip Schumm8, Yashoda Sharma6, Carl A. Anderson1, Jonah Essers9, Mitja Mitrovic3, Kaida Ning6, Isabelle Cleynen10, Emilie Theatre11, Sarah L. Spain12, Soumya Raychaudhuri9, Philippe Goyette13, Zhi Wei14, Clara Abraham6, Jean-Paul Achkar15, Tariq Ahmad16, Leila Amininejad17, Ashwin N. Ananthakrishnan9, Vibeke Andersen18, Jane M. Andrews19, Leonard Baidoo4, Tobias Balschun20, Peter A. Bampton21, Alain Bitton22, Gabrielle Boucher13, Stephan Brand23, Carsten Büning24, Ariella Cohain25, Sven Cichon26, Mauro D'Amato27, Dirk De Jong3, Kathy L Devaney9, Marla Dubinsky5, Cathryn Edwards28, David Ellinghaus20, Lynnette R. Ferguson29, Denis Franchimont17, Karin Fransen3, Richard B. Gearry30, Michel Georges11, Christian Gieger, Jürgen Glas22, Talin Haritunians5, Ailsa Hart31, Christopher J. Hawkey32, Matija Hedl6, Xinli Hu9, Tom H. Karlsen33, Limas Kupčinskas34, Subra Kugathasan35, Anna Latiano36, Debby Laukens37, Ian C. Lawrance38, Charlie W. Lees39, Edouard Louis11, Gillian Mahy40, John C. Mansfield41, Angharad R. Morgan29, Craig Mowat42, William G. Newman43, Orazio Palmieri36, Cyriel Y. Ponsioen44, Uroš Potočnik45, Natalie J. Prescott6, Miguel Regueiro4, Jerome I. Rotter5, Richard K Russell46, Jeremy D. Sanderson47, Miquel Sans, Jack Satsangi39, Stefan Schreiber20, Lisa A. Simms48, Jurgita Sventoraityte34, Stephan R. Targan, Kent D. Taylor5, Mark Tremelling49, Hein W. Verspaget50, Martine De Vos37, Cisca Wijmenga3, David C. Wilson39, Juliane Winkelmann51, Ramnik J. Xavier9, Sebastian Zeissig20, Bin Zhang25, Clarence K. Zhang6, Hongyu Zhao6, Mark S. Silverberg52, Vito Annese, Hakon Hakonarson53, Steven R. Brant54, Graham L. Radford-Smith55, Christopher G. Mathew12, John D. Rioux13, Eric E. Schadt25, Mark J. Daly2, Andre Franke20, Miles Parkes7, Severine Vermeire10, Jeffrey C. Barrett1, Judy H. Cho6 
Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute1, Broad Institute2, University of Groningen3, University of Pittsburgh4, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center5, Yale University6, University of Cambridge7, University of Chicago8, Harvard University9, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven10, University of Liège11, King's College London12, Université de Montréal13, New Jersey Institute of Technology14, Cleveland Clinic15, Peninsula College of Medicine and Dentistry16, Université libre de Bruxelles17, Aarhus University18, University of Adelaide19, University of Kiel20, Flinders University21, McGill University22, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich23, Charité24, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai25, University of Bonn26, Karolinska Institutet27, Torbay Hospital28, University of Auckland29, Christchurch Hospital30, Imperial College London31, Queen's University32, University of Oslo33, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences34, Emory University35, Casa Sollievo della Sofferenza36, Ghent University37, University of Western Australia38, University of Edinburgh39, Queensland Health40, Newcastle University41, University of Dundee42, University of Manchester43, University of Amsterdam44, University of Maribor45, Royal Hospital for Sick Children46, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust47, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute48, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital49, Leiden University50, Technische Universität München51, University of Toronto52, University of Pennsylvania53, Johns Hopkins University54, University of Queensland55
01 Nov 2012-Nature
TL;DR: A meta-analysis of Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis genome-wide association scans is undertaken, followed by extensive validation of significant findings, with a combined total of more than 75,000 cases and controls.
Abstract: Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis, the two common forms of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), affect over 2.5 million people of European ancestry, with rising prevalence in other populations. Genome-wide association studies and subsequent meta-analyses of these two diseases as separate phenotypes have implicated previously unsuspected mechanisms, such as autophagy, in their pathogenesis and showed that some IBD loci are shared with other inflammatory diseases. Here we expand on the knowledge of relevant pathways by undertaking a meta-analysis of Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis genome-wide association scans, followed by extensive validation of significant findings, with a combined total of more than 75,000 cases and controls. We identify 71 new associations, for a total of 163 IBD loci, that meet genome-wide significance thresholds. Most loci contribute to both phenotypes, and both directional (consistently favouring one allele over the course of human history) and balancing (favouring the retention of both alleles within populations) selection effects are evident. Many IBD loci are also implicated in other immune-mediated disorders, most notably with ankylosing spondylitis and psoriasis. We also observe considerable overlap between susceptibility loci for IBD and mycobacterial infection. Gene co-expression network analysis emphasizes this relationship, with pathways shared between host responses to mycobacteria and those predisposing to IBD.

4,094 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In addition to the APOE locus (encoding apolipoprotein E), 19 loci reached genome-wide significance (P < 5 × 10−8) in the combined stage 1 and stage 2 analysis, of which 11 are newly associated with Alzheimer's disease.
Abstract: Eleven susceptibility loci for late-onset Alzheimer's disease (LOAD) were identified by previous studies; however, a large portion of the genetic risk for this disease remains unexplained. We conducted a large, two-stage meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies (GWAS) in individuals of European ancestry. In stage 1, we used genotyped and imputed data (7,055,881 SNPs) to perform meta-analysis on 4 previously published GWAS data sets consisting of 17,008 Alzheimer's disease cases and 37,154 controls. In stage 2, 11,632 SNPs were genotyped and tested for association in an independent set of 8,572 Alzheimer's disease cases and 11,312 controls. In addition to the APOE locus (encoding apolipoprotein E), 19 loci reached genome-wide significance (P < 5 × 10−8) in the combined stage 1 and stage 2 analysis, of which 11 are newly associated with Alzheimer's disease.

3,726 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: CVD burden continues its decades-long rise for almost all countries outside high-income countries, and alarmingly, the age-standardized rate of CVD has begun to rise in some locations where it was previously declining in high- income countries.

3,315 citations


Authors

Showing all 2237 results

NameH-indexPapersCitations
Ralph B. D'Agostino2261287229636
Cisca Wijmenga13666886572
Massimo Mangino11636984902
Xavier Estivill11067359568
Andrea Natale10694552520
Stefano Pileri10063543369
Bruno Dallapiccola9493543208
Fortunato Ciardiello9469547352
F. Bianchi91137040011
Paolo Gasparini9143136059
Joseph G. Gleeson8630723345
Mario Rizzetto7947033693
Giuseppe Leone7465421451
Maurizio Pompili7478320649
Massimo Rugge7459425624
Network Information
Related Institutions (5)
Leiden University Medical Center
38K papers, 1.6M citations

93% related

Mayo Clinic
169.5K papers, 8.1M citations

92% related

Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center
52.5K papers, 2.9M citations

92% related

Charité
64.5K papers, 2.4M citations

91% related

Brigham and Women's Hospital
110.5K papers, 6.8M citations

91% related

Performance
Metrics
No. of papers from the Institution in previous years
YearPapers
20233
20229
2021457
2020446
2019409
2018348