scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Institution

Jikei University School of Medicine

EducationTokyo, Japan
About: Jikei University School of Medicine is a education organization based out in Tokyo, Japan. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Medicine & Cancer. The organization has 8893 authors who have published 15102 publications receiving 316606 citations. The organization is also known as: Tōkyō jikei kai ika daigaku.


Papers
More filters
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: 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

Journal ArticleDOI
Rameen Beroukhim, Craig H. Mermel1, Craig H. Mermel2, Dale Porter3, Guo Wei1, Soumya Raychaudhuri4, Soumya Raychaudhuri1, Jerry Donovan3, Jordi Barretina2, Jordi Barretina1, Jesse S. Boehm1, Jennifer Dobson2, Jennifer Dobson1, Mitsuyoshi Urashima5, Kevin T. Mc Henry3, Reid M. Pinchback1, Azra H. Ligon4, Yoon Jae Cho6, Leila Haery2, Leila Haery1, Heidi Greulich, Michael R. Reich1, Wendy Winckler1, Michael S. Lawrence1, Barbara A. Weir1, Barbara A. Weir2, Kumiko E. Tanaka2, Kumiko E. Tanaka1, Derek Y. Chiang7, Derek Y. Chiang1, Derek Y. Chiang2, Adam J. Bass1, Adam J. Bass2, Adam J. Bass4, Alice Loo3, Carter Hoffman2, Carter Hoffman1, John R. Prensner1, John R. Prensner2, Ted Liefeld1, Qing Gao1, Derek Yecies2, Sabina Signoretti4, Sabina Signoretti2, Elizabeth A. Maher8, Frederic J. Kaye, Hidefumi Sasaki9, Joel E. Tepper7, Jonathan A. Fletcher4, Josep Tabernero10, José Baselga10, Ming-Sound Tsao11, Francesca Demichelis12, Mark A. Rubin12, Pasi A. Jänne4, Pasi A. Jänne2, Mark J. Daly1, Mark J. Daly2, Carmelo Nucera13, Ross L. Levine14, Benjamin L. Ebert4, Benjamin L. Ebert1, Benjamin L. Ebert2, Stacey Gabriel1, Anil K. Rustgi15, Cristina R. Antonescu14, Marc Ladanyi14, Anthony Letai2, Levi A. Garraway1, Levi A. Garraway2, Massimo Loda4, Massimo Loda2, David G. Beer16, Lawrence D. True17, Aikou Okamoto5, Scott L. Pomeroy6, Samuel Singer14, Todd R. Golub1, Todd R. Golub2, Todd R. Golub18, Eric S. Lander2, Eric S. Lander19, Eric S. Lander1, Gad Getz1, William R. Sellers3, Matthew Meyerson1, Matthew Meyerson2 
18 Feb 2010-Nature
TL;DR: It is demonstrated that cancer cells containing amplifications surrounding the MCL1 and BCL2L1 anti-apoptotic genes depend on the expression of these genes for survival, and a large majority of SCNAs identified in individual cancer types are present in several cancer types.
Abstract: A powerful way to discover key genes with causal roles in oncogenesis is to identify genomic regions that undergo frequent alteration in human cancers. Here we present high-resolution analyses of somatic copy-number alterations (SCNAs) from 3,131 cancer specimens, belonging largely to 26 histological types. We identify 158 regions of focal SCNA that are altered at significant frequency across several cancer types, of which 122 cannot be explained by the presence of a known cancer target gene located within these regions. Several gene families are enriched among these regions of focal SCNA, including the BCL2 family of apoptosis regulators and the NF-kappaBeta pathway. We show that cancer cells containing amplifications surrounding the MCL1 and BCL2L1 anti-apoptotic genes depend on the expression of these genes for survival. Finally, we demonstrate that a large majority of SCNAs identified in individual cancer types are present in several cancer types.

3,375 citations


Authors

Showing all 8922 results

NameH-indexPapersCitations
Yusuke Nakamura1792076160313
Kenneth C. Anderson1781138126072
Keiji Tanaka12959482885
Hideyuki Okano128116967148
Ashok Agarwal125114756052
Donald Kufe12168149343
Frank M. Sacks12049080422
Masao Omata11199049271
Shoichiro Tsukita11022548271
Peter McL. Black11065342666
Tatsuhiko Tsunoda10638653517
Dharminder Chauhan10134336111
Roger A. Warnke10038943785
Agnes B. Fogo9857838840
Michael L. Cleary9623635398
Network Information
Related Institutions (5)
Juntendo University
23.7K papers, 644.1K citations

98% related

Yokohama City University
19.8K papers, 520.3K citations

96% related

Tokyo Medical and Dental University
35.6K papers, 1M citations

94% related

Nagasaki University
32.4K papers, 660.4K citations

92% related

Niigata University
35.1K papers, 819.7K citations

92% related

Performance
Metrics
No. of papers from the Institution in previous years
YearPapers
202316
202260
20211,191
2020874
2019723
2018647