Institution
Ghent University
Education•Ghent, Belgium•
About: Ghent University is a education organization based out in Ghent, Belgium. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Poison control. The organization has 36170 authors who have published 111042 publications receiving 3774501 citations. The organization is also known as: UGent & University of Ghent.
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
Ashkan Afshin, Mohammad H. Forouzanfar, Marissa B Reitsma, Patrick J Sur +164 more•Institutions (70)
TL;DR: The rapid increase in the prevalence and disease burden of elevated BMI highlights the need for continued focus on surveillance of BMI and identification, implementation, and evaluation of evidence‐based interventions to address this problem.
Abstract: BACKGROUND Although the rising pandemic of obesity has received major attention in many countries, the effects of this attention on trends and the disease burden of obesity remain uncertain. METHOD ...
4,519 citations
••
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven1, Ghent University2, Karolinska Institutet3, Cairo University4, University of São Paulo5, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center6, Innsbruck Medical University7, University of Duisburg-Essen8, Tufts University9, University of Aberdeen10, University of California, San Diego11, University College Dublin12, University of the Witwatersrand13, Brown University14, Heidelberg University15, Jikei University School of Medicine16
4,482 citations
••
Daniel J. Klionsky1, Fábio Camargo Abdalla2, Hagai Abeliovich3, Robert T. Abraham4 +1284 more•Institutions (463)
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
••
TL;DR: New features have been implemented to search for plant cis-acting regulatory elements in a query sequence and links are now provided to a new clustering and motif search method to investigate clusters of co-expressed genes.
Abstract: PlantCARE is a database of plant cis-acting regulatory elements, enhancers and repressors. Regulatory elements are represented by positional matrices, consensus sequences and individual sites on particular promoter sequences. Links to the EMBL, TRANSFAC and MEDLINE databases are provided when available. Data about the transcription sites are extracted mainly from the literature, supplemented with an increasing number of in silico predicted data. Apart from a general description for specific transcription factor sites, levels of confidence for the experimental evidence, functional information and the position on the promoter are given as well. New features have been implemented to search for plant cis-acting regulatory elements in a query sequence. Furthermore, links are now provided to a new clustering and motif search method to investigate clusters of co-expressed genes. New regulatory elements can be sent automatically and will be added to the database after curation. The PlantCARE relational database is available via the World Wide Web at http://sphinx.rug.ac.be:8080/PlantCARE/.
4,184 citations
••
TL;DR: Recommendations for the evaluation of left ventricular diastolic function by echocardiography are made and further research is needed to determine the best method for this evaluation.
Abstract: Recommendations for the evaluation of left ventricular diastolic function by echocardiography
4,162 citations
Authors
Showing all 36585 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
Stephen V. Faraone | 188 | 1427 | 140298 |
Peter Carmeliet | 164 | 844 | 122918 |
Monique M.B. Breteler | 159 | 546 | 93762 |
Dirk Inzé | 149 | 647 | 74468 |
Rajesh Kumar | 149 | 4439 | 140830 |
Vishva M. Dixit | 145 | 355 | 96471 |
Ruth J. F. Loos | 142 | 647 | 92485 |
Martin Grunewald | 140 | 1575 | 126911 |
Willy Verstraete | 139 | 920 | 76659 |
Barbara Clerbaux | 138 | 1394 | 96447 |
Peter Vandenabeele | 135 | 729 | 81692 |
Michael Tytgat | 134 | 1449 | 94133 |
Pascal Vanlaer | 133 | 1270 | 91850 |
Filip Moortgat | 132 | 1118 | 97714 |
Emelia J. Benjamin | 131 | 640 | 99972 |