scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Institution

Concordia University

EducationMontreal, Quebec, Canada
About: Concordia University is a education organization based out in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Control theory & Population. The organization has 13565 authors who have published 31084 publications receiving 783525 citations. The organization is also known as: Sir George Williams University & Loyola College, Montreal.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The authors describes self-determination theory as a theory of work motivation and shows its relevance to theories of organizational behavior, which has received widespread attention in the education, health care, and sport domains.
Abstract: Cognitive evaluation theory, which explains the effects of extrinsic motivators on intrinsic motivation, received some initial attention in the organizational literature. However, the simple dichotomy between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation made the theory difficult to apply to work settings. Differentiating extrinsic motivation into types that differ in their degree of autonomy led to self-determination theory, which has received widespread attention in the education, health care, and sport domains. This article describes self-determination theory as a theory of work motivation and shows its relevance to theories of organizational behavior. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

5,816 citations

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
25 Jul 2002-Nature
TL;DR: It is shown that previously known and new genes are necessary for optimal growth under six well-studied conditions: high salt, sorbitol, galactose, pH 8, minimal medium and nystatin treatment, and less than 7% of genes that exhibit a significant increase in messenger RNA expression are also required for optimal Growth in four of the tested conditions.
Abstract: Determining the effect of gene deletion is a fundamental approach to understanding gene function. Conventional genetic screens exhibit biases, and genes contributing to a phenotype are often missed. We systematically constructed a nearly complete collection of gene-deletion mutants (96% of annotated open reading frames, or ORFs) of the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. DNA sequences dubbed 'molecular bar codes' uniquely identify each strain, enabling their growth to be analysed in parallel and the fitness contribution of each gene to be quantitatively assessed by hybridization to high-density oligonucleotide arrays. We show that previously known and new genes are necessary for optimal growth under six well-studied conditions: high salt, sorbitol, galactose, pH 8, minimal medium and nystatin treatment. Less than 7% of genes that exhibit a significant increase in messenger RNA expression are also required for optimal growth in four of the tested conditions. Our results validate the yeast gene-deletion collection as a valuable resource for functional genomics.

4,328 citations


Authors

Showing all 13754 results

NameH-indexPapersCitations
Alan C. Evans183866134642
Michael J. Meaney13660481128
Chao Zhang127311984711
Charles Spence11194951159
Angappa Gunasekaran10158640633
Kaushik Roy97140242661
Muthiah Manoharan9649744464
Stephen J. Simpson9549030226
Roy A. Wise9525239509
Dario Farina9483232786
Yavin Shaham9423929596
Elazer R. Edelman8959329980
Fikret Berkes8827149585
Ke Wu87124233226
Nick Serpone8547430532
Network Information
Related Institutions (5)
Arizona State University
109.6K papers, 4.4M citations

93% related

Georgia Institute of Technology
119K papers, 4.6M citations

92% related

McGill University
162.5K papers, 6.9M citations

92% related

University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign
225.1K papers, 10.1M citations

92% related

University of British Columbia
209.6K papers, 9.2M citations

91% related

Performance
Metrics
No. of papers from the Institution in previous years
YearPapers
202375
2022343
20211,859
20201,861
20191,734
20181,680