scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Institution

Guangzhou Medical University

EducationGuangzhou, Guangdong, China
About: Guangzhou Medical University is a education organization based out in Guangzhou, Guangdong, China. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Cancer & Population. The organization has 20787 authors who have published 14759 publications receiving 263212 citations. The organization is also known as: Guangzhou Medical College.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: During the first 2 months of the current outbreak, Covid-19 spread rapidly throughout China and caused varying degrees of illness, and patients often presented without fever, and many did not have abnormal radiologic findings.
Abstract: Background Since December 2019, when coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) emerged in Wuhan city and rapidly spread throughout China, data have been needed on the clinical characteristics of...

22,622 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
Clotilde Théry1, Kenneth W. Witwer2, Elena Aikawa3, María José Alcaraz4  +414 moreInstitutions (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

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: It is estimated that 44% (95% confidence interval, 25–69%) of secondary cases were infected during the index cases’ presymptomatic stage, in settings with substantial household clustering, active case finding and quarantine outside the home.
Abstract: We report temporal patterns of viral shedding in 94 patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 and modeled COVID-19 infectiousness profiles from a separate sample of 77 infector–infectee transmission pairs. We observed the highest viral load in throat swabs at the time of symptom onset, and inferred that infectiousness peaked on or before symptom onset. We estimated that 44% (95% confidence interval, 30–57%) of secondary cases were infected during the index cases’ presymptomatic stage, in settings with substantial household clustering, active case finding and quarantine outside the home. Disease control measures should be adjusted to account for probable substantial presymptomatic transmission. Presymptomatic transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is estimated to account for a substantial proportion of COVID-19 cases.

3,943 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
Jean Bousquet, N. Khaltaev, Alvaro A. Cruz1, Judah A. Denburg2, W. J. Fokkens3, Alkis Togias4, T. Zuberbier5, Carlos E. Baena-Cagnani6, Giorgio Walter Canonica7, C. van Weel8, Ioana Agache9, Nadia Aït-Khaled, Claus Bachert10, Michael S. Blaiss11, Sergio Bonini12, L.-P. Boulet13, Philippe-Jean Bousquet, Paulo Augusto Moreira Camargos14, K-H. Carlsen15, Y. Z. Chen, Adnan Custovic16, Ronald Dahl17, Pascal Demoly, H. Douagui, Stephen R. Durham18, R. Gerth van Wijk19, O. Kalayci19, Michael A. Kaliner20, You Young Kim21, Marek L. Kowalski, Piotr Kuna22, L. T. T. Le23, Catherine Lemière24, Jing Li25, Richard F. Lockey26, S. Mavale-Manuel26, Eli O. Meltzer27, Y. Mohammad28, J Mullol, Robert M. Naclerio29, Robyn E O'Hehir30, K. Ohta31, S. Ouedraogo31, S. Palkonen, Nikolaos G. Papadopoulos32, Gianni Passalacqua7, Ruby Pawankar33, Todor A. Popov34, Klaus F. Rabe35, J Rosado-Pinto36, G. K. Scadding37, F. E. R. Simons38, Elina Toskala39, E. Valovirta40, P. Van Cauwenberge10, De Yun Wang41, Magnus Wickman42, Barbara P. Yawn43, Arzu Yorgancioglu44, Osman M. Yusuf, H. J. Zar45, Isabella Annesi-Maesano46, E.D. Bateman45, A. Ben Kheder47, Daniel A. Boakye48, J. Bouchard, Peter Burney18, William W. Busse49, Moira Chan-Yeung50, Niels H. Chavannes35, A.G. Chuchalin, William K. Dolen51, R. Emuzyte52, Lawrence Grouse53, Marc Humbert, C. M. Jackson54, Sebastian L. Johnston18, Paul K. Keith2, James P. Kemp27, J. M. Klossek55, Désirée Larenas-Linnemann55, Brian J. Lipworth54, Jean-Luc Malo24, Gailen D. Marshall56, Charles K. Naspitz57, K. Nekam, Bodo Niggemann58, Ewa Nizankowska-Mogilnicka59, Yoshitaka Okamoto60, M. P. Orru61, Paul Potter45, David Price62, Stuart W. Stoloff63, Olivier Vandenplas, Giovanni Viegi, Dennis M. Williams64 
Federal University of Bahia1, McMaster University2, University of Amsterdam3, National Institutes of Health4, Charité5, Catholic University of Cordoba6, University of Genoa7, Radboud University Nijmegen8, Transilvania University of Brașov9, Ghent University10, University of Tennessee Health Science Center11, University of Naples Federico II12, Laval University13, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais14, University of Oslo15, University of Manchester16, Aarhus University17, Imperial College London18, Erasmus University Rotterdam19, George Washington University20, Seoul National University21, Medical University of Łódź22, Hai phong University Of Medicine and Pharmacy23, Université de Montréal24, Guangzhou Medical University25, University of South Florida26, University of California, San Diego27, University of California28, University of Chicago29, Monash University30, Teikyo University31, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens32, Nippon Medical School33, Sofia Medical University34, Leiden University35, Leiden University Medical Center36, University College London37, University of Manitoba38, University of Helsinki39, Finnish Institute of Occupational Health40, National University of Singapore41, Karolinska Institutet42, University of Minnesota43, Celal Bayar University44, University of Cape Town45, Pierre-and-Marie-Curie University46, Tunis University47, University of Ghana48, University of Wisconsin-Madison49, University of British Columbia50, Georgia Regents University51, Vilnius University52, University of Washington53, University of Dundee54, University of Poitiers55, University of Mississippi56, Federal University of São Paulo57, German Red Cross58, Jagiellonian University Medical College59, Chiba University60, American Pharmacists Association61, University of Aberdeen62, University of Nevada, Reno63, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill64
01 Apr 2008-Allergy
TL;DR: The ARIA guidelines for the management of allergic rhinitis and asthma are similar in both the 1999 ARIA workshop report and the 2008 Update as discussed by the authors, but the GRADE approach is not yet available.
Abstract: Allergic rhinitis is a symptomatic disorder of the nose induced after allergen exposure by an IgE-mediated inflammation of the membranes lining the nose. It is a global health problem that causes major illness and disability worldwide. Over 600 million patients from all countries, all ethnic groups and of all ages suffer from allergic rhinitis. It affects social life, sleep, school and work and its economic impact is substantial. Risk factors for allergic rhinitis are well identified. Indoor and outdoor allergens as well as occupational agents cause rhinitis and other allergic diseases. The role of indoor and outdoor pollution is probably very important, but has yet to be fully understood both for the occurrence of the disease and its manifestations. In 1999, during the Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) WHO workshop, the expert panel proposed a new classification for allergic rhinitis which was subdivided into 'intermittent' or 'persistent' disease. This classification is now validated. The diagnosis of allergic rhinitis is often quite easy, but in some cases it may cause problems and many patients are still under-diagnosed, often because they do not perceive the symptoms of rhinitis as a disease impairing their social life, school and work. The management of allergic rhinitis is well established and the ARIA expert panel based its recommendations on evidence using an extensive review of the literature available up to December 1999. The statements of evidence for the development of these guidelines followed WHO rules and were based on those of Shekelle et al. A large number of papers have been published since 2000 and are extensively reviewed in the 2008 Update using the same evidence-based system. Recommendations for the management of allergic rhinitis are similar in both the ARIA workshop report and the 2008 Update. In the future, the GRADE approach will be used, but is not yet available. Another important aspect of the ARIA guidelines was to consider co-morbidities. Both allergic rhinitis and asthma are systemic inflammatory conditions and often co-exist in the same patients. In the 2008 Update, these links have been confirmed. The ARIA document is not intended to be a standard-of-care document for individual countries. It is provided as a basis for physicians, health care professionals and organizations involved in the treatment of allergic rhinitis and asthma in various countries to facilitate the development of relevant local standard-of-care documents for patients.

3,769 citations


Authors

Showing all 20865 results

NameH-indexPapersCitations
Wei Zheng1511929120209
Bin Liu138218187085
Jian Li133286387131
Donald Y.M. Leung12161450873
Arthur S. Slutsky11761073092
Kian Fan Chung11681552609
Jules A. Hoffmann10624443596
Li Chen105173255996
Joe G.N. Garcia9963135913
Peng Li95154845198
Jian Wang94101857783
Kang Xu9331634019
Bin Li92175542835
David S.C. Hui8943450302
Jun Lin8869930426
Network Information
Related Institutions (5)
Nanjing Medical University
37.9K papers, 635.8K citations

98% related

Capital Medical University
47.2K papers, 811.2K citations

94% related

Peking Union Medical College
61.8K papers, 1.1M citations

93% related

Sun Yat-sen University
113.7K papers, 2.2M citations

91% related

Fudan University
117.9K papers, 2.6M citations

91% related

Performance
Metrics
No. of papers from the Institution in previous years
YearPapers
202328
2022136
20213,059
20202,770
20192,031
20181,802