Institution
German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases
Facility•Bonn, Germany•
About: German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases is a facility organization based out in Bonn, Germany. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Dementia & Population. The organization has 2669 authors who have published 5487 publications receiving 227329 citations. The organization is also known as: DZNE.
Topics: Dementia, Population, Cognitive decline, Neurodegeneration, Medicine
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
Clotilde Théry1, Kenneth W. Witwer2, Elena Aikawa3, María José Alcaraz4 +414 more•Institutions (209)
TL;DR: The MISEV2018 guidelines include tables and outlines of suggested protocols and steps to follow to document specific EV-associated functional activities, and a checklist is provided with summaries of key points.
Abstract: The last decade has seen a sharp increase in the number of scientific publications describing physiological and pathological functions of extracellular vesicles (EVs), a collective term covering various subtypes of cell-released, membranous structures, called exosomes, microvesicles, microparticles, ectosomes, oncosomes, apoptotic bodies, and many other names. However, specific issues arise when working with these entities, whose size and amount often make them difficult to obtain as relatively pure preparations, and to characterize properly. The International Society for Extracellular Vesicles (ISEV) proposed Minimal Information for Studies of Extracellular Vesicles (“MISEV”) guidelines for the field in 2014. We now update these “MISEV2014” guidelines based on evolution of the collective knowledge in the last four years. An important point to consider is that ascribing a specific function to EVs in general, or to subtypes of EVs, requires reporting of specific information beyond mere description of function in a crude, potentially contaminated, and heterogeneous preparation. For example, claims that exosomes are endowed with exquisite and specific activities remain difficult to support experimentally, given our still limited knowledge of their specific molecular machineries of biogenesis and release, as compared with other biophysically similar EVs. The MISEV2018 guidelines include tables and outlines of suggested protocols and steps to follow to document specific EV-associated functional activities. Finally, a checklist is provided with summaries of key points.
5,988 citations
••
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
••
Jean-Charles Lambert1, Jean-Charles Lambert2, Jean-Charles Lambert3, Carla A. Ibrahim-Verbaas4 +212 more•Institutions (75)
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
••
University of Edinburgh1, University of Calgary2, Medical University of Graz3, The George Institute for Global Health4, University of Cambridge5, VU University Amsterdam6, University of British Columbia7, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre8, German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases9, Paris Diderot University10, University of California, Davis11, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre12, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich13, University College London14, Harvard University15, University of Western Ontario16, The Chinese University of Hong Kong17, Maastricht University18, University of Florence19, Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg20, Newcastle University21, National University of Singapore22, Leiden University Medical Center23, University of Saint Mary24
TL;DR: This Position Paper summarises the main outcomes of this international effort to provide the STandards for ReportIng Vascular changes on nEuroimaging (STRIVE).
Abstract: Cerebral small vessel disease (SVD) is a common accompaniment of ageing. Features seen on neuroimaging include recent small subcortical infarcts, lacunes, white matter hyperintensities, perivascular spaces, microbleeds, and brain atrophy. SVD can present as a stroke or cognitive decline, or can have few or no symptoms. SVD frequently coexists with neurodegenerative disease, and can exacerbate cognitive deficits, physical disabilities, and other symptoms of neurodegeneration. Terminology and definitions for imaging the features of SVD vary widely, which is also true for protocols for image acquisition and image analysis. This lack of consistency hampers progress in identifying the contribution of SVD to the pathophysiology and clinical features of common neurodegenerative diseases. We are an international working group from the Centres of Excellence in Neurodegeneration. We completed a structured process to develop definitions and imaging standards for markers and consequences of SVD. We aimed to achieve the following: first, to provide a common advisory about terms and definitions for features visible on MRI; second, to suggest minimum standards for image acquisition and analysis; third, to agree on standards for scientific reporting of changes related to SVD on neuroimaging; and fourth, to review emerging imaging methods for detection and quantification of preclinical manifestations of SVD. Our findings and recommendations apply to research studies, and can be used in the clinical setting to standardise image interpretation, acquisition, and reporting. This Position Paper summarises the main outcomes of this international effort to provide the STandards for ReportIng Vascular changes on nEuroimaging (STRIVE).
3,691 citations
••
Montreal General Hospital1, German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases2, University of Pennsylvania3, Innsbruck Medical University4, Mount Sinai Hospital5, University of Marburg6, University of Navarra7, University of California, San Diego8, Toronto Western Hospital9, Neuroscience Research Australia10, Rush University Medical Center11, Capital Medical University12, Radboud University Nijmegen13, Mayo Clinic14, University of Kiel15
TL;DR: The Movement Disorder Society PD Criteria retain motor parkinsonism as the core feature of the disease, defined as bradykinesia plus rest tremor or rigidity, and two levels of certainty are delineated: clinically established PD and probable PD.
Abstract: This document presents the Movement Disorder Society Clinical Diagnostic Criteria for Parkinson's disease (PD). The Movement Disorder Society PD Criteria are intended for use in clinical research but also may be used to guide clinical diagnosis. The benchmark for these criteria is expert clinical diagnosis; the criteria aim to systematize the diagnostic process, to make it reproducible across centers and applicable by clinicians with less expertise in PD diagnosis. Although motor abnormalities remain central, increasing recognition has been given to nonmotor manifestations; these are incorporated into both the current criteria and particularly into separate criteria for prodromal PD. Similar to previous criteria, the Movement Disorder Society PD Criteria retain motor parkinsonism as the core feature of the disease, defined as bradykinesia plus rest tremor or rigidity. Explicit instructions for defining these cardinal features are included. After documentation of parkinsonism, determination of PD as the cause of parkinsonism relies on three categories of diagnostic features: absolute exclusion criteria (which rule out PD), red flags (which must be counterbalanced by additional supportive criteria to allow diagnosis of PD), and supportive criteria (positive features that increase confidence of the PD diagnosis). Two levels of certainty are delineated: clinically established PD (maximizing specificity at the expense of reduced sensitivity) and probable PD (which balances sensitivity and specificity). The Movement Disorder Society criteria retain elements proven valuable in previous criteria and omit aspects that are no longer justified, thereby encapsulating diagnosis according to current knowledge. As understanding of PD expands, the Movement Disorder Society criteria will need continuous revision to accommodate these advances.
3,421 citations
Authors
Showing all 2706 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
Albert Hofman | 267 | 2530 | 321405 |
John Q. Trojanowski | 226 | 1467 | 213948 |
Monique M.B. Breteler | 159 | 546 | 93762 |
Martin N. Rossor | 128 | 670 | 95743 |
Andres M. Lozano | 126 | 817 | 63960 |
Markus M. Nöthen | 125 | 943 | 83156 |
Hans A. Kretzschmar | 121 | 544 | 53642 |
Christian Haass | 119 | 445 | 58107 |
Ole A. Andreassen | 115 | 1130 | 71451 |
Andre Franke | 115 | 682 | 55481 |
Leslie M. Shaw | 114 | 616 | 48009 |
Mike A. Nalls | 109 | 456 | 59799 |
Stephen L. Hauser | 106 | 561 | 46248 |
M. Arfan Ikram | 105 | 828 | 62544 |
Thomas Gasser | 105 | 466 | 47471 |