Institution
Edinburgh Napier University
Education•Edinburgh, United Kingdom•
About: Edinburgh Napier University is a education organization based out in Edinburgh, United Kingdom. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Health care. The organization has 2665 authors who have published 6859 publications receiving 175272 citations.
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
University of Saskatchewan1, Dalhousie University2, University of Rhode Island3, Sewanee: The University of the South4, Natural History Museum5, New York State Department of Health6, University of British Columbia7, Kaiserslautern University of Technology8, Charles University in Prague9, University of Guelph10, Le Moyne College11, Georgia College & State University12, University of Colorado Boulder13, University of Geneva14, Edinburgh Napier University15, University of Arkansas16, Saint Petersburg State University17
TL;DR: This revision of the classification of eukaryotes retains an emphasis on the protists and incorporates changes since 2005 that have resolved nodes and branches in phylogenetic trees.
Abstract: This revision of the classification of eukaryotes, which updates that of Adl et al. [J. Eukaryot. Microbiol. 52 (2005) 399], retains an emphasis on the protists and incorporates changes since 2005 that have resolved nodes and branches in phylogenetic trees. Whereas the previous revision was successful in re-introducing name stability to the classification, this revision provides a classification for lineages that were then still unresolved. The supergroups have withstood phylogenetic hypothesis testing with some modifications, but despite some progress, problematic nodes at the base of the eukaryotic tree still remain to be statistically resolved. Looking forward, subsequent transformations to our understanding of the diversity of life will be from the discovery of novel lineages in previously under-sampled areas and from environmental genomic information.
1,414 citations
••
TL;DR: This review shows that only few specific nanoparticles have been investigated in a limited number of test systems and extrapolation of this data to other materials is not possible, and limited ecotoxicological data for nanomaterials precludes a systematic assessment of the impact of Nanoparticles on ecosystems.
Abstract: During the last few years, research on toxicologically relevant properties of engineered nanoparticles has increased tremendously. A number of international research projects and additional activities are ongoing in the EU and the US, nourishing the expectation that more relevant technical and toxicological data will be published. Their widespread use allows for potential exposure to engineered nanoparticles during the whole lifecycle of a variety of products. When looking at possible exposure routes for manufactured Nanoparticles, inhalation, dermal and oral exposure are the most obvious, depending on the type of product in which Nanoparticles are used. This review shows that (1) Nanoparticles can deposit in the respiratory tract after inhalation. For a number of nanoparticles, oxidative stress-related inflammatory reactions have been observed. Tumour-related effects have only been observed in rats, and might be related to overload conditions. There are also a few reports that indicate uptake of nanoparticles in the brain via the olfactory epithelium. Nanoparticle translocation into the systemic circulation may occur after inhalation but conflicting evidence is present on the extent of translocation. These findings urge the need for additional studies to further elucidate these findings and to characterize the physiological impact. (2) There is currently little evidence from skin penetration studies that dermal applications of metal oxide nanoparticles used in sunscreens lead to systemic exposure. However, the question has been raised whether the usual testing with healthy, intact skin will be sufficient. (3) Uptake of nanoparticles in the gastrointestinal tract after oral uptake is a known phenomenon, of which use is intentionally made in the design of food and pharmacological components. Finally, this review indicates that only few specific nanoparticles have been investigated in a limited number of test systems and extrapolation of this data to other materials is not possible. Air pollution studies have generated indirect evidence for the role of combustion derived nanoparticles (CDNP) in driving adverse health effects in susceptible groups. Experimental studies with some bulk nanoparticles (carbon black, titanium dioxide, iron oxides) that have been used for decades suggest various adverse effects. However, engineered nanomaterials with new chemical and physical properties are being produced constantly and the toxicity of these is unknown. Therefore, despite the existing database on nanoparticles, no blanket statements about human toxicity can be given at this time. In addition, limited ecotoxicological data for nanomaterials precludes a systematic assessment of the impact of Nanoparticles on ecosystems.
1,253 citations
••
TL;DR: It is demonstrated that only ultrafine polystyrene particles induced a significant increase in cytosolic calcium ion concentration and experiments using dichlorofluorescin diacetate demonstrated greater oxidant activity of the ultrafine particles, which may explain their activity in these assays.
1,181 citations
••
Daniel J. Klionsky1, Amal Kamal Abdel-Aziz2, Sara Abdelfatah3, Mahmoud Abdellatif4 +2980 more•Institutions (777)
TL;DR: In this article, the authors 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.
Abstract: 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.
1,129 citations
••
Michigan State University1, J. Craig Venter Institute2, National Institutes of Health3, Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute4, Plymouth Marine Laboratory5, University of Maryland, Baltimore6, University of Cambridge7, University of York8, United States Department of Energy9, Ghent University10, Pennsylvania State University11, Argonne National Laboratory12, University of California, San Diego13, Jacobs University Bremen14, University of Colorado Boulder15, National Science Foundation16, Edinburgh Napier University17, Boston Children's Hospital18, University of Georgia19, University of California, Berkeley20, Newcastle University21, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory22, University of California, Irvine23, University of Oxford24, Howard University25, Abertay University26, University of Manchester27, Technical University of Denmark28, University of Wyoming29, University of Pennsylvania30, University of New Mexico31
TL;DR: Here, the minimum information about a genome sequence (MIGS) specification is introduced with the intent of promoting participation in its development and discussing the resources that will be required to develop improved mechanisms of metadata capture and exchange.
Abstract: With the quantity of genomic data increasing at an exponential rate, it is imperative that these data be captured electronically, in a standard format. Standardization activities must proceed within the auspices of open-access and international working bodies. To tackle the issues surrounding the development of better descriptions of genomic investigations, we have formed the Genomic Standards Consortium (GSC). Here, we introduce the minimum information about a genome sequence (MIGS) specification with the intent of promoting participation in its development and discussing the resources that will be required to develop improved mechanisms of metadata capture and exchange. As part of its wider goals, the GSC also supports improving the 'transparency' of the information contained in existing genomic databases.
1,097 citations
Authors
Showing all 2727 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
William MacNee | 123 | 472 | 58989 |
Richard J. Simpson | 113 | 850 | 59378 |
Ken Donaldson | 109 | 385 | 47072 |
John Campbell | 107 | 1150 | 56067 |
Muhammad Imran | 94 | 3053 | 51728 |
Barbara Rothen-Rutishauser | 70 | 339 | 17348 |
Vicki Stone | 69 | 204 | 25002 |
Sharon K. Parker | 68 | 238 | 21089 |
Matt Nicholl | 66 | 224 | 15208 |
John H. Adams | 66 | 354 | 16169 |
Darren J. Kelly | 65 | 252 | 13007 |
Neil B. McKeown | 65 | 281 | 19371 |
Jane K. Hill | 62 | 147 | 20733 |
Min Du | 61 | 326 | 11328 |
Xiaodong Liu | 60 | 474 | 14980 |